ORDERS:
FINAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§61-2-90 (Supp. 1996) and S. C. Code Ann. §§1-23-310 et seq. (1986 and Supp. 1996) for a contested
case hearing. The Petitioner, Deborah B. C. Middleton, seeks an off-premise beer and wine permit
for C&D Grocery Store. The Respondent made a Motion to be Excused which was granted by my
Order dated July 22, 1997. A hearing was held on October 2, 1997 in the Administrative Law Judge
Division.
The Permit 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, taking into consideration the burden of persuasion by the Petitioner and Protestant,
I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of evidence:
1. Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was given to the
Petitioner, Protestants, and South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation.
2. The Petitioner opened C&D Grocery Store at 565 Meeting Street, Charleston, South
Carolina in May 1997. She now seeks an off-premise beer and wine permit for her location.
3. The qualifications set forth in S. C. Code Ann. §61-4-520 (Supp. 1996) 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 has no criminal record and is of sufficient moral character to receive
a beer and wine permit.
5. The proposed location is not unreasonably close to any church, school or playground.
6. The proposed location has been permitted for the off-premise sale of beer and for
approximately the last forty (40) years. The Petitioner's father previously operated a convenience
store at this location from approximately 1957 until his death in 1973. Since her father's death the
location was leased to two different individuals, both of whom held permits for the sale of beer and
wine.
7. The proposed location is suitable for an off-premise beer and wine permit.
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. 1996) grants jurisdiction to the Administrative
Law Judge Division to hear contested cases under the Administrative Procedures Act.
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 1996) grants the Administrative Law Judge
Division the responsibilities to determine contested matters governing alcoholic beverages, beer and
wine.
3. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 (Supp. 1996) sets forth the requirements for the issuance
of an on-premise beer and wine permit.
4. 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).
5. 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 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).
6. 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).
7. 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 a protestant objects to the
issuance of a permit 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).
8. In considering the suitability of a location, it is relevant to consider the previous
history of the location and to determine whether the testimony in opposition to 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).
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the off-premise beer and wine permit application of Deborah B. C.
Middleton for the C&D Grocery Store be granted upon the Petitioner's payment of the required fees
and costs.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________________
Judge Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
October 2, 1997
Columbia, South Carolina |