ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 1998) and
S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310, et seq. (Supp. 1998) for a hearing pursuant to the application of
David Rutledge. The Petitioner seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit for a social club
under construction at 125-B Bloomvillage, in Andrews, Williamsburg County, South Carolina.
After timely notice to the parties and the protestants, a hearing was conducted at the
Administrative Law Judge Division in Columbia, South Carolina. The application for an on-premises beer and wine permit is hereby granted, with a restriction.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony, exhibits, 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:
1. The Petitioner seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit for a social club located
within the county of Williamsburg, South Carolina at 125-B Bloomvillage Road.
2. The South Carolina Department of Revenue's file was made a part of the record
by reference with the consent of the parties.
3. The land and/or building where this club is to be located is owned by Henrietta
Anderson.
4. The Petitioner will be involved in the management or day-to-day operation of the
business, and he intends to open the club for business on Thursdays through Saturdays.
5. No church, school, or playground is within close proximity to the proposed
location.
6. The State Law Enforcement Division ("SLED") completed a criminal background
investigation of Petitioner David Rutledge. The SLED report did not reveal any criminal
violations that would disqualify Petitioner from being issued a permit. Further, there is nothing
in the record before this tribunal to indicate that Petitioner has engaged in acts that imply the
absence of good moral character.
7. The Petitioner is at least 21 years of age, a U.S. citizen, a citizen of the State of
South Carolina, and has maintained his 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.
8. The Petitioner has never held a beer and wine permit or other license for the sale
or consumption of alcoholic beverages.
9. Notice of the application appeared in The Kingstree News, 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.
10. Protestant Walter Morris objects to the issuance of the beer and wine permit. He
cites the following reasons as the basis for his objection: (1) the area already has three to four
social clubs; (2) the community has a high incidence of crime; and (3) a number of teenagers live
in the area and are likely to be affected by the increased traffic resulting from the club or are
likely themselves to frequent the club.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:
1. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 1998) authorizes the South Carolina
Administrative Law Judge Division to hear this case.
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 (Supp. 1998) establishes the criteria for the issuance
of a beer and wine permit.
3. 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. Ronald F. Byers v. S.C. ABC Commission, 281
S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984).
4. There has been no evidentiary showing that the present location is unsuitable or
that the issuance of an on-premises beer and wine permit would have an adverse impact on the
surrounding community. While the protestant cited opposition to the issuance of the permit, his
opposition was grounded in speculation. The denial of a license or permit to an applicant on the
grounds 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).
5. The Petitioner satisfies all of the statutory requirements for holding an on-premises beer and wine permit.
6. Permits and licenses issued by the State for the sale of liquor, beer, and wine are
not rights or property, but are privileges granted in the exercise of the police power of the State to
be used and enjoyed only so long as the restrictions and conditions governing them are complied
with. As the tribunal authorized to grant the issuance of a permit is also authorized, for cause, to
revoke it, that tribunal is likewise authorized to place restrictions or conditions on the permit or
license. See Feldman v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22 (1943).
7. 23 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 7-88 (1976), authorizing the imposition of restrictions to
permits, provides:
Any stipulations and/or agreement which is voluntarily entered into by an
applicant in writing for a beer and wine permit between the applicant and the
South Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, if accepted by the
Commission, will be incorporated into the basic requirements for the enjoyment
and privilege of obtaining and retaining the beer and wine permit and which shall
have the same effect as any and all laws and any and all other regulations
pertaining to the effective administration of beer and wine permits and permittees.
In the event that evidence is presented to this Commission that any part of
the stipulation or agreement is or has been knowingly broken by the permittee will
[sic] be a violation against the permit and shall constitute sufficient grounds to
suspend or revoke said beer and wine permit.
STIPULATION(S)
1. The applicant agrees, as a condition to the issuance of an on-premises beer and
wine permit, that he will not permit his patrons to park on the shoulders of the road surrounding
the club, and he will take assertive action to ensure that his patrons comply with this restriction.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the application of David Rutledge for an on-premises beer and wine
permit for the location at 125-B Bloomvillage Road, Andrews, South Carolina, Williamsburg
County, be granted upon the applicant signing a written agreement to be filed with the
Department to adhere to the following restriction:
The Petitioner will not permit his patrons to park on the shoulders of the road
surrounding his club, and he will take action to ensure that his patrons comply with this
restriction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a violation of the above restriction is considered a
violation against the permit and may result in a fine, suspension, or revocation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Department of Revenue issue the on-premises
beer and wine permit upon payment of the required fee(s) and cost(s) by the Petitioner.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
March 23, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina |