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. 1995) and S. C. Code Ann. §§1-23-310 et seq. (1986 and Supp. 1995) for a
contested case hearing. The Petitioner, Calvin D. Chatham, seeks an off-premise beer and wine
permit and a retail liquor license for the Calvin's ABC Store and Variety Convenience Store. A
hearing was held on January 4, 1996, Administrative Law Judge Division, 1205 Pendleton Street,
Columbia, South Carolina.
The Permit requested by the Petitioner is approved with restrictions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed upon
their credibility, considering the burden of persuasion by the Parties or Protestants, I make the
following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of evidence:
1. The Petitioner originally sought an on-premise beer and wine permit
for the proposed location. However, at the hearing he amended his
requested permit. The Petitioner now seeks an off-premise beer and
wine permit for Calvin's Variety Convenience Store at 2548-B North
Main Street, Columbia, South Carolina. The Petitioner also seeks a
retail liquor license for Calvin's ABC Store at 2548-A, North Main
Street.
2. Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was
given to the Applicant, Protestants, and South Carolina Department
of Revenue.
3. The qualifications set forth in S. C. Code Ann.§§ 61-3-420 and 61-9-320 (Supp. 1995) concerning the residency and age of the Petitioner
are properly established. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not had a
permit or license revoked within the last two years and notice of the
application was lawfully posted both at the location and in a
newspaper of general circulation.
4. The Petitioner is of sufficient moral character to receive a beer and
wine permit.
5. The Petitioner's business is located in a commercial area of Columbia.
The proposed location is not within 300 feet of any church, school or
playground. However, the proposed location is in the center of the
intersection of three neighborhoods. The location is directly adjacent
to the "Cotton Town" neighborhood. Though these neighborhoods are
located in the city they are comprised primarily of young families and
senior citizens. The residents often walk upon the streets of these
neighborhoods in the mornings and evenings.
6. The Petitioner testified he plans to open an upscale grocery store at
the location where he seeks the beer and wine permit. Most of the
proposed parking area would be visible from inside the store.
However, there is a large area behind the store that is not visible from
the inside.
7. The previous business at the proposed location, Krispy Kreme
Doughnuts, had problems with vagrants exposing themselves and
urinating upon the property. One local resident even had instances
were vagrants crawled under his home at night to sleep. The police
frequently had to respond to calls at the business.
8. The Petitioner's proposed location does not yet structurally comply
with S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-3-1000 and 61-3-1020 (Supp. 1995).
9. The proposed location is suitable for an off-premise beer and wine
permit for an upscale grocery store with the restrictions set forth
below. The location is not suitable for either a retail liquor license or
a beer and wine permit for a "convenience type" store. A license or
convenience store permit for this location would create an undue
burden upon law enforcement and adversely affect the residential
community by attracting vagrants and criminal activity to the area.
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. 1995) 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. 1995) 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. 1995) sets forth the requirements
for the issuance of an off-premise beer and wine permit.
4. No new licenses may be granted if the place of business is within 300
feet of any church, school, or playground if the business is in a
municipality or within 500 feet if the business is outside the
municipality. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-3-440 (Supp. 1995).
5. Whether there is adequate and proper police protection for an
intended retail liquor store is also a proper consideration. Terry v.
Pratt, 258 S.C. 177, 187 S.E.2d 884 (1972).
6. 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).
7. As the trier of fact, the Administrative Law Judge is authorized to
decide 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. Byers v. South Carolina ABC Commission, 281
S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d 705, (Ct. App. 1984).
8. 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).
9. Without sufficient evidence of an adverse impact on the community,
the application must not be denied if the statutory criteria are satisfied.
The fact that Protestant objects to the issuance of the permits is not
a sufficient reason by itself to deny the application. See 45 Am. Jur.
2d Intoxicating Liquors § 162 (Supp. 1995); 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating
Liquors § 119 (1981).
10. In considering the suitability of a location, it is relevant to consider the
previous history of the location and to decide whether the testimony
opposing the granting of a permit is based on opinions, generalities
and conclusions or whether the case is supported by facts. Smith v.
Pratt, 258 S.C. 504, 189 S.E.2d 301, (1972); Taylor v. Lewis, et al.,
261 S.C. 168, 198 S.E.2d 801 (1973).
11. Permits and licenses issued by the state for sale of liquor, beer and
wine are not rights or property but are privileges granted in the
exercise of the state's police power to be used and enjoyed only while
the restrictions and conditions governing them are complied with.
The Administrative Law Judge, as the tribunal authorized to grant the
issuance of a permit, may likewise place restrictions or conditions on
the permit or license. See Feldman v. S.C. Tax Comm'm, 203 S.C. 49,
26 S.E.2d 22 (1943). Furthermore, 23 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 7-88
(1976) authorizing the imposition of restrictions to permits, provides:
Any stipulation and/or agreement which is voluntarily
entered into by an applicant in writing for a beer and
wine permit between the applicant and the South
Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, if
accepted by the Commission, will be incorporated into
the basic requirements for the enjoyment and privilege
of obtaining and retaining the beer and wine permit
and which shall have the same effect as any and all
laws and any and all other regulations pertaining to
the effective administration of beer and wine
permittees.
In the event that evidence is presented to this
Commission that any part of the stipulation or
agreement is or has been knowingly broken by the
permittee will be a violation against the permit and
shall constitute sufficient grounds to suspend or
revoke said beer and wine permit.
12. I conclude that the applicant meets all the statutory requirements for
holding a beer and wine permit at the proposed location. Accordingly,
I conclude that the proposed location is a proper one for granting the
above permit with the following restrictions in a written stipulation.
STIPULATION
The Petitioner stipulated at the hearing that he would abide by the following restrictions if
granted an off-premise permit:
1. The Petitioner will employ security officers to police the location from
5:00 p.m. to closing.
2. An eight-foot wooden privacy fence will be constructed between the
residences and the proposed location.
3. The Petitioner will insure that the property is sufficiently lighted and
that the lights do not reflect or shine upon the local residences.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the application of Calvin D. Chatham for a retail liquor license is denied. It
is further ordered that the application for an off-premise beer and wine permit be granted upon the
Applicant signing a written Agreement with the South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation
to adhere to the stipulations that are set forth below:
1. The Petitioner or his employees shall maintain proper lighting around
his proposed location to discourage criminal activity. The Petitioner
shall insure that the lights do not reflect or shine upon the local
residences.
2. The Petitioner and his employees shall prohibit loitering and the
consumption of beer, wine or liquor by the patron/customers in the
parking lot area of the proposed location. The Petitioner shall further
make every effort to have his employees check the parking lot area on
an hourly basis to ensure that no one is loitering upon his premises.
3. As long as the Petitioner holds a beer and wine permit for this location
the stipulated fence shall be maintained in a good condition to
accomplish both the limitation of movement between the properties
and a good appearance. The stipulated wooden privacy fence shall be
at least eight feet in height and shall be constructed between the
residences and the proposed location.
4. The Petitioner shall contract with a bonded security company or an
off-duty law enforcement officer, as permissible under the law, to have
a security guard on duty from 5:00 p.m. to closing to patrol the area
immediately surrounding the proposed location.
5. The Petitioner shall not sell beer or wine after 11:00 p.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a violation of any of the above restrictions be considered
a violation against the permit and license and may result in a fine, suspension or revocation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Department of Revenue and Taxation issue an off-premise beer and wine permit upon the payment of the required fee and cost by the Applicant.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
February 14, 1996
Columbia, South Carolina |