ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before me upon the protest of the Petitioner's application for a retail
liquor license. Protestants oppose issuance of the license on the grounds that the location is
unsuitable. After notice to the parties and protestants, a hearing was held July 23, 1998 at the
Florence County Courthouse.
Upon review of the evidence presented and applicable law, I find and conclude the location
is suitable for the issuance of the retail liquor license. Any issues raised or presented in the
proceedings or hearing of this case not specifically addressed in this Order are deemed denied.
ALJD Rule 29(C).
FINDINGS OF FACT
I make the following Findings of Fact, taking into account the burden on the parties to
establish their respective cases by a preponderance of the evidence and taking into consideration
the credibility of the witnesses:
The Petitioner seeks a retail liquor license for a proposed business to be located at
511-A Kelly Street, within the city limits of Kingstree, in Williamsburg County.
The Petitioner's application (AI: R/L 119640), filed with the Department of Revenue
on January 29, 1998, was incorporated into the record without objection.
The Petitioner is at least twenty-one years of age, an American citizen, and has
maintained his principal place of abode in South Carolina since 1995.
The Petitioner is of good moral character and is of good repute. The State Law
Enforcement Division (SLED) completed a criminal background investigation of the Petitioner, and
the report revealed no criminal violations. Further, the record does not reveal that the Petitioner has
engaged in acts or conduct that imply the absence of good moral character.
The Petitioner has not had an alcoholic liquor license revoked within five years
preceding the filing of the application.
The Petitioner's proposed place of business is not located within 300 feet of any
church, school, or playground.
No other member of the Petitioner's household has been issued a retail liquor store
license.
The Petitioner has neither been issued more than three retail dealer licenses nor does
he, a relative, or any partnership, association, corporation in which he is involved have an interest,
financial or otherwise, in more than three retail stores.
The Petitioner provided notice of his application in the Kingstree News on the days
of January 14, 21, and 28, 1997. The Kingstree News is published and issued in the area of the
proposed business. A public notice sign was displayed for fifteen days at the site of the proposed
business, beginning February 9, 1998.
DOR affirmed that there was no controversy between the Petitioner and DOR, that
DOR had no evidence it wished to offer concerning the issuance of the license, and that DOR would
have issued the license but for the unanswered question of the suitability of the location.
The proposed location is located near the intersection of Kelly Street and Thorne
Avenue, in an area zoned as "neighborhood commercial."
The Petitioner owns the proposed location and will manage the retail liquor store to
be located there. The Petitioner currently operates a grocery store from which an area will be
constructed for the retail liquor store.
The location has been operated as a grocery store for over 20 years. The grocery
store has been licensed in the past to sell beer and wine for off-premises consumption. Petitioner
currently holds a beer and wine permit for the grocery store.
Gene Gray protested the application on the grounds that the operation of a retail
liquor store would negatively affect the business activity at his Laundromat, which neighbors the
proposed location, and would harm property values in the area.
Margaret F. Burrows protested the application because the residential character of
the neighborhood is not suited for the issuance of a retail liquor license. Burrows's residence is
located across Kelly Street from the proposed location, and she is employed at the Laundromat
owned by Gene Gray.
Only generalities, opinions, and conclusions, without factual support, were offered
to support the Protestants' contention that issuance of the license and permit would detrimentally
affect the well-being of the community.
The proposed location is suitable for the issuance of a retail liquor license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law the following:
The Administrative Law Judge Division has subject matter jurisdiction over this
contested case pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1997) and S.C. Code Ann. §
1-23-600(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310 et seq. (Rev. 1986
& Supp. 1997).
- S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-6-110 & 61-6-120 (Supp. 1997) establish the criteria for
determining eligibility for a retail liquor license. Additional requirements are set forth in Sections
61-6-130 to 61-6-190.
- Although "proper location" is not statutorily defined, broad discretion is vested in
the Administrative Law Judge Division as the finder of fact 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).
- The determination of suitability of a location is not necessarily a function solely of
geography. It involves an infinite variety of considerations related to the nature and operation 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).
- In determining whether a proposed location is suitable, it is proper for this tribunal
to consider any evidence that shows adverse circumstances of location. Smith v. Pratt, 258 S.C.
504, 189 S.E.2d 301 (1972); Palmer v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 282 S.C. 246, 317 S.E.2d
476 (Ct. App. 1984).
- Only generalities, opinions, and conclusions, without factual support, were offered
to support Protestants' contention that issuance of the license would detrimentally affect the
well-being of the community. Such unsupported allegations form an insufficient basis for denial.
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).
- The fact that the issuance of a permit or license is protested does not serve as a
sufficient reason by itself to deny the application. See 48 Am. Jur. 2d Intoxicating Liquors § 162
(Supp. 1994).
- The Protestants have not submitted sufficient evidence to show that the present
location is unsuitable or that the issuance of a retail liquor license would affect the residents' safety,
create additional traffic problems, or adversely impact the community.
- The proposed location is suitable for the issuance of a retail liquor license.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Department of Revenue approve the application of Yogendrakumar
V. Patel, d/b/a Yogi Package Shop, for a retail liquor license at 511-A Kelly Street, Kingstree.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
ALISON RENEE LEE
Administrative Law Judge
July 27, 1998
Columbia, South Carolina |
