ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 1997) and
S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310, et seq. (Supp. 1997) for a hearing on the application of Pearline B.
Boswell. Petitioner seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit for a restaurant to be located at
707 Dekalb Street, Camden, South Carolina.
After timely notice to the parties and protestants, a hearing was held on March 24, 1998,
at the Administrative Law Judge Division in Columbia, South Carolina. The protestants of
record, Patricia M. Bracey, Rosa B. Brown, Lula Harrell Callwood, Bessie M. Doby and Rev.
Cassandra Pasley Jackson did not move to intervene as parties. Pursuant to its Motion to Be
Excused, the Department was excused from appearing at this hearing, and would have granted
the permit but for the protests.
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 application for 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:
- Petitioner seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit for a restaurant to be located
within the city limits of Camden, South Carolina at 707 Dekalb Street.
- The proposed location is situated in a commercially zoned area of downtown
Camden with several other similar businesses.
- Jackson Elementary school is located 614 feet down the street and Camden United
Methodist Church is located 360 feet across the street from the proposed location. The church's
parsonage is next door to the location.
- Petitioner owns the proposed location, which has never been licensed.
- Petitioner intends to operate the proposed location as a restaurant which will serve
lunch and dinner daily. The proposed hours of operation are from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and
5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
- Petitioner presented testimony from members of the community who
enthusiastically support her proposed business and application.
- The protestants all eloquently stated that they morally oppose the sale of beer and
wine at the location because of its proximity to the school, church and parsonage. However, all
of the protestants stated that other than the proposed sale of beer and wine, they believed that
Petitioner's business was good for the community and would support the restaurant when it
opens for business.
- Petitioner is of good moral character. The State Law Enforcement Division
completed a criminal background investigation of the Petitioner. The SLED report revealed no
criminal violations, and the record before this tribunal does not indicate that Petitioner has
engaged in acts or conduct that imply the absence of good moral character.
- Petitioner is at least twenty-one (21) years of age, a U.S. citizen, and a citizen of
the State of South Carolina. Furthermore, Petitioner 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.
- Petitioner has never held a beer and wine permit or alcoholic beverage license.
- Notice of the application appeared in the Chronicle-Independent, a newspaper of
general circulation in the area of the proposed location, once a week for three (3) consecutive
weeks, and notice was posted at the proposed location for fifteen (15) days.
- The Department does not oppose Petitioner's application and would have issued
the permit but for the protests.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISCUSSION
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:
- S.C. Code Ann. section 61-2-260 (Supp. 1997) and Chapter 23 of Title 1 of the
1976 Code, as amended, authorize the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division to
hear this case.
- S.C. Code Ann. section 61-4-520 (Supp. 1997) establishes the criteria for the
issuance of a beer and wine permit.
- 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. See Fast Stops, Inc. v. Ingram, 276 S.C. 593, 281 S.E.2d 118 (1981).
- 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. See Byers v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 281
S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984).
- The determination of the suitability of a location is not necessarily a function of
geography alone. It involves an infinite variety of considerations related to the nature and
operations of the proposed business and its impact on the community within which it is to be
located. Kearney v. Allen, 287 S.C. 324, 338 S.E.2d 335 (1985); Schudel v. South Carolina
ABC Comm'n, 276 S.C. 138, 276 S.E.2d 308 (1981).
- There was not a sufficient evidentiary showing that the present location is
unsuitable or that the issuance of an on-premises beer and wine permit would affect the residents'
safety, create traffic problems, or 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 area in which the proposed location is situated. In fact, Petitioner presented
considerable, credible testimony that her business will be an asset to the community. Even the
protestants acknowledge that except for the sale of alcoholic beverages, they believe that
Petitioner's business will be good for the community.
- The denial of a license or permit to an applicant on the ground 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).
- 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 the issuance of a
permit or license is protested is not a sufficient reason by itself to deny the application. See 48
Am. Jur. 2d Intoxicating Liquors § 162 (Supp. 1994); 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors § 119
(1981).
- The location is suitable and proper for the issuance of an on-premises beer and
wine permit.
- The protestants also raised the issue of a statutory prohibition on issuing permits
for an establishment within a certain distance of a church, school or playground. However, the
statutorily proscribed distances relating to proximity of a location to churches, schools or
playgrounds contained in section 61-6-120 are inapplicable in the instant case. Nevertheless, for
sake of enhancing the protestants' understanding, this tribunal will briefly explain why this code
section does not apply in this matter.
Section 61-6-120 provides: "The department shall not grant or issue any license provided
for in this article or Article 7 of this chapter, if the place of business is within three hundred feet
of any church, school, or playground situated within a municipality or within five hundred feet of
any church, school, or playground situated outside of a municipality." S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-120 (Supp. 1997). The statute specifically states that licenses provided for in "this article or
Article 7" are affected. Section 61-6-120 is contained in Article 3, which applies to retailers,
wholesalers, and manufacturers. Article 7 governs importation of alcoholic liquors. Therefore,
only licenses issued pursuant to Chapter 6, Articles 3 and 7 are affected by section 61-6-120.(1)
This does not include section 61-4-520, which governs the issuance of beer and wine permits,
and is contained in Chapter 4. Moreover, even if this code section was applicable, the proposed
location would still meet the statutory requirements because it is more than three hundred feet
from any church, school or playground.
- Petitioner meets all of the statutory criteria enacted by the South Carolina General
Assembly for the issuance of an off-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 protestants are mainly rooted in their moral objection to the
proposed location selling alcoholic beverages. This tribunal acknowledges the protestants'
opposition to the issuance of the permit in question, as well as their right to hold such sentiments.
However, mere aversion to the sale of alcoholic beverages is not within the statutory grounds for
denial of a permit request. See 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors §§ 118, 119, 121 (1981).
Therefore, the arguments proffered by protestants do not constitute a sufficient basis on which to
deny Petitioner's request.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the Department of Revenue shall continue processing Petitioner's
application for an on-premises beer and wine permit for 707 Dekalb Street, Camden, South
Carolina.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
Post Office Box 11667
Columbia, South Carolina 29211-1667
April 3, 1998
Columbia, South Carolina
1. Although section 61-6-120 states that it applies to licenses issued pursuant to Articles 3
and 7, section 61-6-1820(3) states that before issuing a sale and consumption license license
(minibottle) pursuant to Article 5, the department must ensure that section 61-6-120 has been
complied with. See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-6-120 and 61-6-1820. |