ORDERS:
ORDER ON PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division (Division) pursuant to Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration
of the Division's Order dated June 14, 1999. After a hearing on May 20, 1999, I granted the Petitioner his requested on-premise beer and wine permit with restrictions. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated June 21,
1999.
The Petitioner objects to the restriction that he "shall only sell beer and wine on Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays, opening
no earlier than 8:00 p.m. and closing no later than 12:00 a.m." That restriction was based upon the Petitioners own
testimony concerning his hours of operation and my determination of the character of the area. The Petitioner now contends
that "he will be completing school shortly and he needs to be able to [operate] his business from 9:00 a.m. to 12: a.m.,
Monday through Saturday."
Administrative Law Judge Division Rule 29 (D) sets forth that "[a]ny party may move for reconsideration of a final decision
of an administrative law judge in a contested case, subject to the grounds for relief set forth in Rule 60(B)(1 through 5),
SCRCP . . . . " The Final Order and Decision issued by this Court in the above matter was supported by a preponderance of
the credible evidence and by the statutory and case law of South Carolina. Specifically, I find that though the Petitioner's
attorney presented his reasoning quite soundly, the proposed location is in a residential area. If the issue of whether or not
to initially grant a permit for this location had been before me, I would not have found the location suitable. Nevertheless,
since the location had been previously permitted and no significant changes in the area were established by the Protestants, I
granted the Petitioner a permit. However, the Petitioner's request to now operate this location for longer hours and more
days changes the character of his business. I find that change would have an adverse impact upon the residential nature of
the surrounding community.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
August 12, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina |
