ORDERS:
FINAL 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, Cye Parker III, seeks an on-premise beer and wine
permit and a mini-bottle sale and consumption license for The Club of Rock Hill ("Club"). A
hearing was held on December 10, 1996 at the Administrative Law Judge Division.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed upon their
credibility, taking into consideration the burden of persuasion by the Parties or Protestants, I
make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of evidence:
1. Cye Parker III, holds an on-premises beer and wine permit and mini-bottle sale and
consumption license for the private club, Club of Rock Hill, Inc. ("Club"). The Club is located at
863 Saluda Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina.
2. In April, 1996, Mr. Parker applied to the South Carolina Department of Revenue
("Department") for renewal of the above licenses and permits for the Club. Chief Larry Nowery,
Rock Hill Police Department, filed a protest to each of the renewals. The protest indicated that
numerous criminal complaints were generated from the Club, causing safety problems and
imposing an ever increasing burden on law enforcement. On April 18, 1996, the Department's
Licensing Section denied the renewal of Mr. Parker's licenses based on the protest filed.
3. Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was given to the Respondent,
the Protestants, and the South Carolina Department of Revenue.
4. There have been numerous criminal complaints generated from the Club in the past few years.
These complaints include assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, petty larceny,
burglary, disorderly conduct, assault and battery with intent to kill, among others. In the last year
and a half, approximately 126 calls for assistance have been generated from the Club's location
and have required law enforcement response. These activities have threatened the safety of the
nearby residents and citizens who are in transit. They have also imposed a heavy burden on law
enforcement officials. In fact, when law enforcement officers respond to calls at the Club, the
atmosphere often becomes more threatening because of the patron's response to the law
enforcement presence.
5. The proposed location is unsuitable for a beer and wine permit and a mini-bottle sale and
consumption license because of its proximity to the nearby residences, the burden upon law
enforcement and the resulting negative impact that would occur upon the local community.
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. §§ 6-9-320 and 61-5-50 (Supp. 1995) set forth the requirements for the
issuance of an on-premise beer and wine permit and a mini-bottle sale and consumption license.
4. A license for the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages must not be granted unless the
provisions of S.C. Code Ann. § 61-5-50 (Supp. 1995) is met. That section requires that a
mini-bottle license be granted only to a bonafide business engaged in either the business of
primarily and substantially preparing and serving meals or furnishing lodging. The principals and
applicant must not only be of good moral character, but furthermore, the business must also have
a reputation for peace and good order.
5. 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, 281 S.E.2d 118 (1981).
6. As the trier of fact, the Administrative Law Judge is authorized to determine the fitness or
suitability of the proposed business location of a Petitioner for a beer and wine permit and a
mini-bottle sale and consumption license using broad, but not unbridled, discretion. Byers v.
South Carolina ABC Commission, 281 S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984).
7. 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).
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the renewal of the on-premise beer and wine permit and mini-bottle sale and
consumption license of Cye Parker, III, for The Club of Rock Hill be denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________
Judge Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
January 16, 1997
Columbia, South Carolina |
