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) upon Petitioner's request for a contested-case. Petitioner seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit and a
minibottle license for a social club located at 5625 Canon Bridge Road, Cope, South Carolina.
After timely notice to the parties and the protestants, a hearing was held on July 12, 1999, at the Administrative Law Judge
Division in Columbia, South Carolina. Protestant Herbert Williams failed to appear at the hearing. Protestant Jacqueline
Bolton appeared at the hearing but did not move to intervene as a party.
The issues considered at the hearing were: (1) Petitioner's eligibility to hold a beer and wine permit, and minibottle license
(2) the suitability of the proposed location. The on-premises beer and wine permit and minibottle license are 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 on-premises beer and wine permit and a minibottle license for a social club located at 5625
Canon Bridge Road, Cope, South Carolina.
2. Petitioner and another individual own the building that houses the social club. This location was previously
licensed under several different names and operated by various other individuals.
3. Petitioner incorporated the club as a non-profit organization on November 24, 1998. The stated purpose of
the club is to provide opportunities for club members to join together in social and fraternal endeavors for their mutual
benefit.
4. Petitioner operates the club Wednesday through Saturday from 6:00 a.m. "until" and Sunday from 2:00 p.m.
to 7:00 p.m.
5. The club is located in a rural area outside the city of Orangeburg. A used car lot and several residences are in
the vicinity of the club. No church, school, or playground is within close proximity to the proposed location.
6. Petitioner is of good moral character. The State Law Enforcement Division completed a criminal background
investigation of 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.
7. 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 her principal residence in the state for at least thirty days prior to the date of making
application for an on-premises beer and wine permit and minibottle license.
8. Petitioner has not had a beer and wine permit or alcoholic beverage license revoked within two years of the
date of her application.
9. Notice of the application appeared in the Times and Democrat, a newspaper of general circulation in the area
of the proposed location, once a week for three consecutive weeks, and notice was posted at the proposed location for
fifteen days.
10. Ms. Bolton opposes the permit because of problems with litter and noise that she experienced when the club
was operated under its previous management. Ms. Bolton conceded that she has not experienced any problems with the club
during the seven months that Ms. Kiser has operated the club.
11. The Department does not oppose Petitioner's application and would have issued the permit and license but for
the protest.
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. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 1998), S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 1998) and S.C. Code Ann.
§ 1-23-310 (Supp. 1998) authorize 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. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-1820 (Supp. 1998) establishes the criteria for the issuance of a minibottle license.
4. 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).
5. As the trier of fact, an administrative law judge is authorized to determine the fitness or suitability of the
proposed location of an applicant for a permit to sell alcohol 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).
6. 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 location 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).
7. There has been no evidentiary showing that the present location is unsuitable or that the issuance of an on-premises beer and wine permit and minibottle license would have an adverse impact on the surrounding community. While
the protestant cited opposition to the issuance of the permit, her opposition was based on prior problems with operators
other than Petitioner. The protestant admitted that there have been no such problems since Petitioner began operating the
club. 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).
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 on-premises beer and wine permit and minibottle license. In making a decision in this matter, this tribunal is
constrained by the record before it and the applicable statutory and case law. Because there is insufficient evidence of an
adverse impact on the community, and Petitioner meets the applicable statutory criteria, the beer and wine permit and
minibottle license must be granted.
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 and minibottle license for 5625 Canon Bridge Road, Cope, South Carolina.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
July 15, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina |
