ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-3-420, 61-3-440 and 61-3-730
(Supp. 1995) upon the application of David H. Parker, d/b/a S & R ABC for a retail liquor license
for premises located at Route 1, Highway 265/109, Ruby, South Carolina. A hearing was requested
by Petitioner after he received notice from the Department of Revenue and Taxation ("Department")
of written protests.
The application for a retail liquor license was protested by Dr. William Massey, Pastor of
Ruby Baptist Church; Reverend Jackie Hinson, Pastor of Cross Roads Baptist Church; and Sheriff
Carl K. Welch of the Chesterfield County Sheriff's Department. After notice to the parties, a hearing
was conducted on June 21, 1996.
Any issues raised in the proceedings or hearing of this case but not addressed in this Order
are deemed denied. ALJD Rule 29(B).
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the testimony and evidence presented, I make the following findings of fact,
taking into consideration the burden on the parties to establish their respective cases by a
preponderance of the evidence, and taking into account the credibility of the witnesses:
1. The applicant, David H. Parker, is over the age of twenty-one and has been a legal
resident of the United States and South Carolina for more than thirty days prior to the application.
2. Although Parker has a criminal record, his offenses are more than ten years old. There
have been no convictions since 1985. Since that time, the Department has issued a beer and wine
permit to Parker. He is of suitable moral character for the issuance of a retail liquor license.
3. Mr. Parker currently holds a beer and wine permit for the convenience store and seed
and feed store located next to the proposed location. It is an off-premise beer and wine permit. It
has not been suspended or revoked.
4. Notice of the application was posted at the proposed location and published in The
Cheraw Chronicle of Chesterfield County for the required time periods. In addition, the applicant
has furnished the required bond for a liquor store.
5. The proposed location is in a rural area on Route 1, Highway 265/109 in Ruby, South
Carolina. It is located four miles from Chesterfield, in Chesterfield County. The highway is heavily
traveled. The nearest business to the proposed site is the convenience store run by Parker which is
twelve feet away.
6. Sheriff Welch of the Chesterfield County Sheriff's Department protested the
application on the basis that he did not have adequate law enforcement officers to patrol the area.
Thirteen deputies patrol an 847 square mile area. Sheriff Welch stated that there are never more than
three deputies on duty at one time.
7. A number of police officers live in the area surrounding the proposed location. The
convenience store is patrolled on a regular basis by the Chesterfield County Sheriff's Department.
Officers leave notes at the store with the time the premises was checked. Five incident reports have
been reported since November 1995, all of which involve public drunkenness or public intoxication.
8. Several witnesses who live near the proposed location testified that they have
experienced no problems with the store and have witnessed the patrolling of the area by the local
sheriff's department. The witnesses offered testimony that the area is heavily traveled at times, but
offered no opposition to the applicant's permit being issued.
9. The hours of operation would be 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday. Mr. Parker would be the sole operator of the business with assistance from his wife,
Paulette Parker. Mrs. Parker does not have a criminal record and is of good moral character.
10. There are no schools, playgrounds or churches within a mile of the proposed location.
The Protestants, Cross Roads Baptist Church and Ruby Baptist Church are both over a mile and a
half from the proposed location. The churches object to the application on moral grounds and the
safety of motorists traveling this highway. Several clergy members testified that they opposed the
sale and consumption of alcohol in any form, under any circumstances, and adamantly oppose the
licensing of any location within the Town of Ruby.
11. Additional concerns about the location were expressed regarding the people who
frequent the convenience store. Although there have been police incident reports, there is no
evidence that the persons were drinking on the premises or that such conduct interfered with the
proper operation of the business.
12. Concern was expressed about a resident who occasionally assists in the operation of
the convenience store. Testimony revealed that he has a problem with alcohol and may be an
alcoholic. He does frequent the location and has been the subject of police incident reports at the
location. There is no evidence that he will be involved in the operation of the liquor store.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law:
1. The Administrative Law Judge Division is vested with the powers, duties and
responsibilities exercised 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. 1995).
2. The administrative law judge has sole and exclusive power to grant a retail liquor
license in contested and protested matters. S. C. Code Ann. § 61-3-410 (Supp. 1995).
3. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-3-420 (Supp. 1995) lists the criteria for determining eligibility
for a retail liquor license. The applicant must be at least 21 years old; a legal resident of the United
States and a resident of South Carolina for at least thirty days before the date of the application;
maintain a principal abode for at least thirty days before the date of the application; be of good moral
repute; and not have had any type of liquor license revoked in the five years preceding the application.
The applicant meets all statutory requirements for issuance of a retail liquor license.
4. No new licenses may be granted if the place of business is within three hundred feet
of any church, school, or playground if the business is situated within a municipality or within five
hundred feet if the business is outside the municipality. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-3-440 (Supp. 1995).
The proposed location is situated more than one mile from any church, school, or playground.
5. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-3-460 and 61-3-461 (Supp. 1995), a person may
not hold or have an interest in more than three retail liquor stores. The applicant currently holds a
beer and wine permit and does not have any interest in any others.
6. No retail liquor license may be granted to a person who owes state or federal
delinquent taxes, penalty or interest. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-3-425 (Supp. 1995). The applicant does
not have any outstanding tax liability.
7. Adequate and proper police protection for an intended retail liquor store is a proper
consideration. Terry v. Pratt, 258 S.C. 177, 187 S.E.2d 884 (1972). The evidence establishes that
this area of Chesterfield County has adequate police protection. The location is patrolled everyday.
8. "A liquor license or permit may be properly refused on the ground that the location
of the establishment would adversely affect the public interest, that the nature of the neighborhood
and of the premises is such that the establishment would be detrimental to the welfare . . . of the
inhabitants, or that the manner of conducting the establishment would not be conducive to the general
welfare of the community." 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors §121 (1981).
9. The denial of a license or permit to an applicant on the ground of unsuitability of the
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.
Smith v. Pratt, 258 S.C. 504, 189 S.E.2d 301 (1972); Taylor v. Lewis, 261 S.C. 168, 198 S.E.2d 801
(1973).
10. The Court respects the right of an individual or a congregation to abstain from the
purchase and consumption of alcohol and to not be disturbed by those who do chose to buy and drink
beer, wine or liquor. Standards for judging the suitability of a proposed location for the sale of
alcoholic beverages, however, are not determined by a local community's religious convictions or
moral litmus test. Criteria must be uniform, objective, constant, and consistent throughout the state.
The sale of alcoholic beverages is a lawful enterprise in South Carolina, as regulated by the State.
11. This Court has neither the authority nor the inclination to conduct local referenda on
whether a particular community is opposed in principle to the sale of alcoholic beverages. This Court
must decide to issue or deny a retail liquor license based solely upon the relevant facts and the
applicable law.
12. There has been no evidentiary showing that the present location is unsuitable or that
the issuance of a retail liquor license 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.
13. The Protestants concerns are well-taken, however, based upon the Findings of Fact
and the statutory criteria which the applicant has met, there is no basis to deny the permit.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the applicant, David H. Parker, d/b/a S & R ABC at Route 1, Highway
265/109, Ruby, South Carolina, is entitled to the issuance of a retail liquor license. The Department
shall issue the permit upon the payment of the appropriate license fees.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
ALISON RENEE LEE
Administrative Law Judge
June ______, 1996
Columbia, South Carolina |
