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, Patricia A. Rein, seeks a retail liquor license for The
Liquor Store. The Respondent made a Motion to be Excused which was granted by my Order
dated November 18, 1996. A hearing was held on January 9, 1997 at the Administrative Law
Judge Division, 1205 Pendleton Street, Columbia, South Carolina.
The License requested by the Petitioner is approved.
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 seeks a retail liquor license for The Liquor Store at 650 College Park Road, Unit
50-G, Goose Creek, South Carolina.
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 and Taxation ("Department").
3. The qualifications set forth in S. C. Code Ann. § 61-3-420 (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 retail liquor license.
5. The Protestant objects to the Petitioner receiving a retail liquor license because she used pricing
information she obtained as an employee of his liquor store to help her establish her proposed
liquor store. Additionally, the Protestant contends that the location is too close in proximity to
Stratford High School.
6. The Petitioner's business is located in a commercial area of Goose Creek. A store in the same
shopping center approximately 40 feet from the proposed location has been previously licensed
for retail liquor sales. There have been no notable changes in the shopping center area since that
store was licensed two years previously.
7. The closest entrance to Stratford High School is 1,040 feet from the proposed location
following the route of ordinary vehicular or pedestrian travel. There is a 385-foot dirt path
between the shopping center and the school. However, I find that path is not a route of ordinary
pedestrian travel between the school and the shopping center .
8. The proposed location is suitable for a retail liquor license.
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. §§ 61-3-420 through -480 (Supp. 1995) set forth the requirements for the
issuance of a retail liquor license.
4. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-3-440 (Supp. 1995) provides that 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. That distance is
computed by "following the shortest route of ordinary pedestrian or vehicular traffic along the
public thoroughfare . . . ."
5. "No person, directly or indirectly, individually or as a member of a partnership or an
association, as a member or stockholder of a corporation or as a relative to any person by blood
or marriage within the second degree, shall have any interest whatsoever in any retail liquor store
licensed under this section except the three stores covered by his retail dealer's license, as
provided for in § 61-3-460." S.C. Code Ann. § 61-3-461 (Supp. 1995).
6. 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).
7. Although "proper location" is not statutorily defined, broad discretion is vested in the trier of
fact in deciding 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).
8. 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).
9. 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).
10. 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).
11. 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).
12. A license should be granted to a location that has been recently permitted absent some
showing that the location is now less suitable than in the past. Taylor v. Lewis, supra.
13. The Petitioner meets all the statutory requirements for holding a retail liquor license at the
proposed location.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the application of Patricia A. Rein for a retail liquor license be granted upon the
payment of the required fee and cost by the Petitioner.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
January 10, 1997
Columbia, South Carolina |
