ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §61-2-90 (Supp. 1999) and
S.C. Code Ann. §§1-23-310 et seq. (1986 and Supp. 1999) for a contested hearing. The Petitioner, James Hands/Eateries
Inc., seeks an on-premise beer and wine permit and a restaurant mini bottle license for Garfield's Restaurant and Pub. The
Respondent's Amended Agency Transmittal, dated July 28, 1999, indicated that seven individuals protested the applications.
Pursuant to his letter, dated July 29, 1999, the Petitioner moved for an expedited hearing pursuant to ALJD Rule 3-b and
waived the thirty day notice requirement. The Respondent, by fax dated August 2, 1999, did not object to the Petitioner's
request for an expedited hearing. The Notice of Expedited Hearing was mailed to all interested parties on August 2, 1999,
setting a hearing before me on August 11, 1999, at 2:00 p.m. A hearing was convened before me on the date and time
noticed in the Expedited Hearing Notice. No protestants appeared to present any opposition to the permit and license
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed upon their credibility, taking into
consideration the burden of proof upon the Petitioner, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the
evidence:
1. Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was given to the Petitioner, Protestants, and Respondent,
South Carolina Department of Revenue (Department).
2. The Petitioner seeks an on-premise beer and wine permit and a restaurant mini bottle license for Garfield's Restaurant and
Pub (Garfield's) at 3131 North Main Street, Anderson, South Carolina. The location is in the Anderson Mall in Anderson,
South Carolina.
3. The qualifications set forth in S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-4-520 and 61-6-1820 (Supp. 1998) concerning the residency and age
of the Petitioner are properly established. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not had a permit or license revoked within the last
two years and notice of the application was lawfully posted both at the location and in a newspaper of general circulation.
4. The Petitioner has no criminal record and is of sufficient moral character to receive a beer and wine permit and restaurant
mini bottle license. Furthermore, there was no evidence offered to establish that the Petitioner's business did not have a
reputation for peace and good order.
5. The proposed location is not unreasonably close to any church, school or playground.
6. Garfield's is a restaurant located in Anderson Mall that seats 190 people. The restaurant is a franchise operation with
another location in a mall in Spartanburg, South Carolina, which has an on-premise beer and wine permit and mini bottle
license. The Restaurant has a full service kitchen and a menu for a full service restaurant. The parent company, Eateries
Inc., owner of Garfield's Restaurant and Pub, has various restaurant locations in twenty-six states. The restaurant has a
Grade A posting for the service of food and a Certificate of Occupancy issued by the City of Anderson.
The hours of operation for Garfield's are from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 10:00 a.m. to 11:00
p.m. Friday and Saturday, and 12:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Sunday.
7. Garfield's main entrance is on the east wing of the Anderson Mall parking lot. Anderson Mall is comprised of
approximately seventy stores. The Mall has had two prior establishments in the past that were licensed for beer and wine
and mini bottle consumption. These locations posed no threat or harm to the general public that attend the mall.
Furthermore, Anderson Mall is primarily a business area and the closest residence is approximately 500 feet away.
The Mall has a Director of Security and employs off-duty policemen from the City of Anderson to patrol the mall area.
Additionally, security personnel patrol the parking areas of the mall. Security personnel will be on duty for at least one hour
after the location closes in the evening. 8. After the presentation of the evidence, the Respondent's Attorney informed the
Court that based upon the evidence presented, the Department would have issued the license and permit, if not for the
protest of certain individuals. I find that the proposed location is suitable for an on- premise beer and wine permit and a
restaurant mini bottle license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1. S.C. Code Ann. §1-23-600 (Supp. 1998) grants jurisdiction to the Administrative Law Judge Division to hear contested
cases under the Administrative Procedures Act.
2. S.C. Code Ann. §61-2-260 (Supp. 1998) grants the Administrative Law Judge Division the responsibilities to determine
contested matters governing alcoholic beverages, beer and wine.
3. S.C. Code Ann. §61-4-520 (Supp. 1998) sets forth the requirements for the issuance of an on-premise beer and wine
permit.
4. In addition to the requirements set forth above, a license for the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages must not be
granted unless the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. §61-6-1820 (Supp. 1998) are met. That section requires that a mini bottle
license be granted only to a bonafide business engaged in either the business of primarily and substantially preparing and
serving meals or furnishing lodging. Furthermore, the principals and applicant must not only be of good moral character, but
furthermore, the business must also have a reputation for peace and good order.
5. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-1820 (Supp. 1998) provides that a sale and consumption license shall not be granted unless the
proposed location meets the minimum distance requirements from churches, schools, or playgrounds as set forth in S.C.
Code Ann. § 61-6-120 (Supp. 1998). Section 61-6-120 requires that a location licensed to sell liquor inside a municipality
must be a minimum of five hundred feet (500) from any church, school, or playground.
6. Although "proper location" is not statutorily defined, broad discretion is vested in the trier of fact in determining the
fitness or suitability of a particular location. Fast Stops, Inc. v. Ingram. 276 S.C. 593, 281 S.E. 2d 118 (1981).
7. As the trier of fact, the Administrative Law Judge is authorized to determine the fitness or suitability of the proposed
business location of a Petitioner for a permit to sell beer and wine using broad, but not unbridled, discretion. Byers v South
Carolina ABC Commission, 281 S.C. 566, 316 S.E. 2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984).
8. The determination of suitability of location is not necessarily a function solely of geography. It involves an infinite variety
of considerations related to the nature and operations of the proposed business and its impact upon the community within
which it is to be located. Kearney v Allen, 287 S.C. 324, 338 S.E. 2d 335 (1985).
9. Without sufficient evidence of an impact on the community, the application must not be denied if the statutory criteria are
satisfied. The fact that a protestant objects to the issuance of a permit is not a sufficient reason by itself to deny the
application. See 45 Am. Jur. 2d Intoxicating Liquors § 162 (Supp. 1995); 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors § 119 (1981).
10. In considering the suitability of a location, it is relevant to consider the previous history of the location and to determine
whether the testimony in opposition to the granting of a permit is based on opinions, generalities and conclusions or whether
the case is supported by facts. Smith v. Pratt, 258 S.C. 504, 189 S.E. 2d 301, (1972); Taylor v. Lewis, et al., 261 S.C. 168,
198 S.E. 2d 801, (1973).
11. The Petitioner meets the statutory requirements for holding a beer and wine permit and a restaurant mini bottle license.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the application for an on-premise beer and wine permit and a restaurant mini bottle license of James
Hands/Eateries Inc., d/b/a Garfield's Restaurant and Pub, be granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Department of Revenue issue a beer and wine permit and a restaurant mini bottle
license upon the payment of the required fees and costs by the Petitioner.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
August 12, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina |
