ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is before me pursuant to the Motion to Reconsider filed by Gregory D. Travis
(Petitioner) on December 27, 1995. The protestants filed a Return to the Motion wherein they
sought its dismissal. The South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation (Respondent or
Department) did not file a Return.
A telephonic conference between Ed Holler, attorney for Petitioner and Bryan Ramey,
attorney for the protestants, was initiated by the undersigned and held on the afternoon of January
10, 1996, in an effort to resolve the Motion. Since the Department took no position as to the permit
request of Petitioner, did not appear at the hearing and pursuant to their Motion, by Order was
excused from participating further in this matter at the administrative level, they were not a participant
in the telephonic conference.
In the conference, the attorneys for both the Petitioner and the protestants stated their
respective views concerning amending my Order and Decision dated December 8, 1995. The
Petitioner seeks clarification of restriction number 1 concerning outdoor advertising and the removal
of restriction number 5 limiting the sale of beer and wine between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 12:00
a.m. The Protestants wish for the restrictions to remain as outlined in the Order.
After listening to the respective arguments, reviewing the file and evidence presented at the
hearing, as well as considering letters filed on January 12, 1996 by both parties, together with my
previous Order including all Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained therein, it is hereby
ORDERED that my previous Order and Decision dated December 8, 1995, remains in effect
in all respects except as hereinafter amended:
(1) Restriction number 1 in the Order provisions is stricken and deleted therefrom, with
the following substituted in lieu thereof:
No advertisement of beer or wine may be physically located outside the store building
at the location. However, advertisements and/or signs may be located inside the
building, including those which are visible from the outside.
(2) Restriction number 5 in the Order provisions is stricken and deleted therefrom in its
entirety.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________________________________
Marvin F. Kittrell
Chief Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
January 15, 1996 |
