ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1995) and S.C.
Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310, et seq. (Supp. 1995) for a hearing on the application of Rebecca E. Evans.
Petitioner seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit (AI 108027) for a restaurant located at 6601
Highway 24, outside the city of Townville, Anderson County, South Carolina.
After timely notice to the parties and the protestant, a hearing was held at the Administrative
Law Judge Division in Columbia, South Carolina. The protestant moved to intervene as a party and
was granted leave to intervene on July 8, 1996. The issues considered at the hearing were: (1) the
petitioner's eligibility to hold a beer and wine permit; (2) the suitability of the proposed business
location; and (3) the nature of the proposed business activity.
The on-premises beer and wine permit is hereby granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony and arguments presented at the hearing of this
matter, and taking into account the credibility and accuracy of the evidence, I make the following
Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. Petitioner seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit for a restaurant located at 6601
Highway 24, outside the city of Townville, Anderson County, South Carolina.
2. Petitioner's application to the South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation
("Department") was made a part of the record by reference, without objection.
3. The proposed location is situated off of Highway 24, a two lane well traveled
thoroughfare near Exit 11 off Interstate 85. The area in which the proposed location is situated is
predominantly commercial.
4. There are other businesses in the vicinity of the proposed location which hold off-premises beer and wine permits.
5. No church, school, or playground is within close proximity to the proposed location.
6. Oakdale Baptist Church is located approximately 1056 feet away from the proposed
location.
7. Petitioner leases the proposed location from W.F. Tiller.
8. Petitioner has operated and managed the proposed location for five years. The
restaurant has an extensive menu and serves breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
9. The proposed location was previously permitted with an off-premises beer and wine
permit from 1990-1995, when it operated as Hartwell Lake Store.
10. The State Law Enforcement Division ("SLED") completed a criminal background
investigation of the petitioner. The SLED report revealed no criminal violations; and, petitioner has not
engaged in acts or conduct that imply the absence of good moral character.
11. Petitioner is at least 21 years of age, a U.S. citizen, a citizen of the State of South
Carolina, and has maintained her principal residence in the state for at least thirty (30) days prior to the
date of making application for an on-premises beer and wine permit.
12. Notice of the application appeared in The Anderson Monitor/Business & Politics, a
newspaper of general circulation in the area of the proposed location, for three (3) consecutive weeks
and notice was posted at the proposed location for fifteen (15) days.
13. The Department did not oppose the petitioner's application.
14. The respondent-intervenor, Reverend David Blizzard of Oakdale Baptist Church,
testified in opposition to the permit in question. The respondent-intervenor cited the following
contentions as justification for denial of the on-premises beer and wine permit: (1) the proximity of the
proposed location to the church; (2) the slow law enforcement response time; (3) the over saturation of
beer and wine locations in the area; (4) the intersection located near the proposed location around Exit
11, on Highway 24 is "confusing" to one unfamiliar with the location; and, (5) most of the customers
who frequent the proposed location are truck drivers. While not specifically alleged, it can be inferred
that the respondent-intervenor believed that patrons of the proposed location might drink and drive in
an impaired state, and thus, increase the likelihood of accidents at this intersection.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISCUSSION
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:
A. 1. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1995) and Chapter 23 of Title 1 of the 1976 Code,
as amended, authorizes the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division to hear this case.
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-9-320 (Supp. 1995) establishes the criteria for the issuance of a
beer and wine permit.
3. Although "proper location" is not statutorily defined, broad discretion is vested in the
Administrative Law Judge Division in determining the fitness or suitability of a particular location.
Fast Stops, Inc. v. Ingram, 276 S.C. 593, 281 S.E.2d 181 (1981).
4. As the trier of fact, an administrative law judge is authorized to determine 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. Ronald F. Byers v. S.C. ABC Comm'n, 281 S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d
705 (Ct. App. 1984).
5. The denial of a license or permit to an applicant on the grounds of unsuitability of
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. Taylor v.
Lewis, 261 S.C. 168, 198 S.E.2d 801 (1973); Smith v. Pratt, 258 S.C. 504, 189 S.E.2d 301 (1972).
B. The respondent-intervenor raised several specific grounds which he alleges warrants the denial
of petitioner's permit. This tribunal disagrees. The church is not within close proximity to the
proposed location. Instead, the church is located over 1000 feet away. This distance exceeds that
statutorily prescribed for consideration in the issuance of a liquor license. As to the other grounds
respondent-intervenor raised, they are speculative and/or unsupported by the evidence. There has been
no concrete evidentiary showing that the present location is unsuitable or that the issuance of an on-premises beer and wine permit would have an adverse impact on the community. The proposed
location and the nature of the business activity are suitable and proper given the commercial nature of
the surrounding area.
Petitioner meets all of the criteria enacted by the South Carolina General Assembly for the
issuance of an on-premises beer and wine permit. In making a decision in this matter, this tribunal is
constrained by the record before it and the applicable statutory and case law. The objections raised by
the respondent-intervenor are mainly rooted in his abhorrence to the proposed location selling alcoholic
beverages. This tribunal acknowledges the opposition to the issuance of the permit in question and also
acknowledges the right of the respondent-intervenor to hold such sentiments. However, this opposition
is without merit and not within the statutory grounds for refusal of the permit. See 45 Am. Jur. 2d
Intoxicating Liquors § 162 (Supp. 1994); 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors §§ 118, 119, 121 (1981).
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the Department of Revenue and Taxation issue an on-premises beer and wine
permit to Rebecca E. Evans, for a location at 6601 Highway 24, outside the city of Townville,
Anderson, South Carolina upon the payment of the required fee(s) and cost(s) by petitioner.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
Edgar A. Brown Building
1205 Pendleton Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
July 18, 1996 |
