ORDERS:
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 on the application of Sammie L. Hagood.
Petitioner seeks an off-premises beer and wine permit for a grocery store located at Highway 125
and Bluff Road, Allendale, South Carolina.
After timely notice to the parties and protestants, a hearing was held on May 21, 1999, at the
Administrative Law Judge Division in Columbia, South Carolina. The protestants of record, Rev.
Larry Flippo and James Renew, did not move to intervene as parties. The Department 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 off-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:
1. Petitioner seeks an off-premises beer and wine permit for a grocery store located at
Highway 125 and Bluff Road, Allendale County.
2. The proposed location is situated in a rural area in Allendale County.
3. No concrete evidence was presented to indicate that this location was previously
licensed with a beer and wine permit.
4. Petitioner's grocery store has daily hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
5. 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.
6. Petitioner is at least twenty-one years of age, a U.S. citizen, and a citizen of the State
of South Carolina. Furthermore, Petitioner has maintained his principal residence in the state for at
least thirty days prior to the date of making application for an off-premises beer and wine permit.
7. Petitioner has not had a beer and wine permit or alcoholic beverage license revoked
within two years of the date of his application.
8. Notices of the application appeared in the Allendale County Citizen Leader, and the
People-Sentinel, newspapers of general circulation in the area of the proposed location, once a week
for three consecutive weeks. Notice was also posted at the proposed location for fifteen days.
9. Rev. Flippo, District Overseer for the Church of God, and Mr. Renew morally oppose
the sale of beer and wine. Rev. Flippo also believes that the location is too close to the church, will
create a safety hazard, and increase crime in the community.
10. 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:
1. S.C. Code Ann. section 61-2-260 (Supp. 1998) and Chapter 23 of Title 1 of the 1976
Code, as amended, authorize the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division to hear this
case.
2. S.C. Code Ann. section 61-4-520 (Supp. 1998) establishes the criteria for the issuance
of a beer and wine permit.
3. 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).
4. 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 (Court. App. 1984).
5. 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).
6. There was not a sufficient evidentiary showing that the present location is unsuitable
or that the issuance of an off-premises beer and wine permit would affect residents' safety, increase
crime problems, or have an adverse impact on the community.
7. 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).
8. 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).
9. 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 protestants are mainly rooted in their moral objection to the proposed
location selling alcoholic beverages. This tribunal acknowledges their opposition to the issuance of
the permit, 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 the 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 off-premises beer and wine permit for Highway 125 and Bluff Road, Allendale,
South Carolina.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
Post Office Box 11667
Columbia, South Carolina 29211-1667
June 2, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina |
