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 James E.
Campbell. Petitioner seeks an off-premises beer and wine permit (AI 109437) for a convenience
store located at 3610 Highway 34 West outside the city of Latta, Dillon County, South Carolina. After timely notice to the parties and the protestants, a hearing was held at the
Administrative Law Judge Division, Columbia, South Carolina. Susan Martin was the only
protestant present at the hearing. She did not move to intervene as a party. The issues
considered at the hearing were: (1) 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.
Petitioner's off-premises beer and wine permit is hereby denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony, exhibits, 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 off-premises beer and wine permit for Country Living
Convenience Store which is located at 3610 Highway 34 West, outside the city of Latta, Dillon
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 located off of Highway 34, a two lane highway, in a rural
residential area.
4. There are several residences within close proximity of the proposed location.
5. No church, school or playground is within close proximity to the proposed
location.
6. Petitioner has operated and managed the proposed location as a convenience store
for approximately four months. The daily hours of operation at the proposed location are from
6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Friday and
Saturday.
7. Petitioner owns the proposed location.
8. The State Law Enforcement Division ("SLED") completed a criminal background
investigation of petitioner James E. Campbell. The SLED report revealed no criminal violations;
and, petitioner has not engaged in acts or conduct that imply the absence of good moral character.
9. Petitioner is at least 21 years of age, a U.S. citizen, a citizen of the State of South
Carolina, and has maintained his principal residence in the state for at least thirty (30) days prior
to the date of making application for an off-premises beer and wine permit.
10. Notice of the application appeared in The Dillon Herald, 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.
11. The Department did not oppose petitioner's application.
12. Susan Martin testified in opposition to the permit in question. Her residence is
located approximately 129 feet away from the proposed location. As justification for denial of an
off-premises beer and wine permit, the protestant cited: (1) her aversion to the sale of alcohol
because it has never been sold at this location in the past and (2) the proximity of the proposed
location to her residence.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISCUSSION
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:
1. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1995) authorizes the South Carolina
Administrative Law Judge Division to hear this case pursuant to Chapter 23 of Title I of the 1976
Code, as amended.
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. "The proximity of a location to a church, school or residence is a proper ground by
itself, on which the [trier of fact] may find the location to be unsuitable and deny a permit for the
sale of beer or wine at that location." Byers v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 305 S.C. 243, 407
S.E.2d 653 (1991); Moore v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 308 S.C. 167, 417 S.E.2d 555
(1992).
5. The proposed location is located in the midst of a residential area and is extremely
close in proximity to a number of residences, the protestant in particular, and is therefore not a
suitable or proper location for a beer and wine permit. See SLED Area Sketch.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the off-premises beer and wine permit for a convenience store located at
3610 Highway 34 West outside the city of Latta, Dillon County, South Carolina is denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
Post Office Box 11667
Columbia, South Carolina 29211-1667
October 1, 1996 |