ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
I. Statement of the Case
John B. Copeland (Copeland) filed with the South Carolina Department of Revenue (DOR), an
application for an renewal of beer and wine permit and a sale and consumption (minibottle) license
for 92 Hwy. 72 W., Abbeville, South Carolina. A protest was filed by Rev. Bobby Cutter pursuant
to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-525 resulting in a contested case before the Administrative Law Judge
Division (ALJD) under S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-2-260 (Supp. 2003), 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 2003) and
1-23-310 (Supp. 2003). The evidence and relevant factors require granting the renewal of the beer
and wine permit and the sale and consumption (minibottle) license.
II. Issue
Does Copeland meet the requirements for an renewal of a beer and wine permit and a sale and
consumption (minibottle) license?
III. Analysis
Based on the preponderance of the evidence, the following findings of fact are entered:
A. Findings of Fact
On or about November 26, 2003, Copeland filed an application with the Department of Revenue for
a renewal of a beer and wine permit and a sale and consumption (minibottle) license. The application
is identified by DOR as AI # 32030055.
The applicant and the location were investigated by SLED and the investigating agent drew a map
generally depicting the immediate area of the location. The business (and the place where the beer
and wine permit will be utilized) is located at 92 Hwy. 72 W., Abbeville, South Carolina. The
business is a restaurant selling typical fast food items such as burgers and also provides billiards for
its patrons. No churches, schools, residences, or playgrounds are nearby.
The evidence does not establish any incidents of crime occurring in and around the proposed location
nor were any law enforcement records presented showing crime at the location. Likewise, no law
enforcement records were presented to show any problem with traffic routes for the location.
The area is primarily commercial in nature with several commercial establishments nearby including
a barber shop, an automobile maintenance shop, two car dealers, and a family dental clinic. Further,
there is no evidence of the presence of children in any significant degree.
The area has establishments that hold either a beer and wine permit or an alcohol license. For
example, within one mile of the location, five locations have on-premises permits and six have off-premises permits. Thus, the renewal here will not adversely change the character of the area.
The proposed location has operated for approximately 4 years and during that time has had no beer
and wine or minibottle violations. Consistent with the location's positive record, DOR states it
would have granted the permit but for the protest. In response, the protestant argues from a moral
basis that alcohol presents a substance likely to harm the public.
B. Conclusions of Law
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1. Location Factors
Under S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 (Supp. 2003), no beer and wine permit may be granted unless the
location of the place of business is a proper location. Palmer v. S.C. ABC Comm'n, 282 S.C. 246,
317 S.E.2d 476 (Ct. App. 1984); Kearney v. Allen, 287 S.C. 324, 338 S.E.2d 335 (1985). The
proximity of the location to residences, churches, schools, and playgrounds is a proper
consideration. William Byers v. S.C. ABC Comm'n, 305 S.C. 243, 407 S.E.2d 653 (1991); Moore
v. S.C. ABC Comm'n, 308 S.C. 160, 417 S.E.2d 555 (1992). In this case, the evidence does not
show any improper proximity to any of the protected institutions of residences, churches, schools,
or playgrounds.
In addition, a proper consideration for reviewing a beer and wine permit is examining the impact
granting the permit will have upon law enforcement. Moore v. S.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control
Comm'n, 308 S.C. 167, 417 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1992); Fowler v. Lewis, 260 S.C. 54, 194 S.E.2d 191
(1973); Roche v. S.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm'n, 263 S.C. 451, 211 S.E.2d 243 (1975).
Here, no evidence of law enforcement concerns was presented.
Further, consideration can be given to the extent to which the highway traffic presents a location that
is heavily traveled or creates a traffic danger. Palmer v. S.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm'n,
282 S.C. 246, 317 S.E.2d 476 (Ct. App. 1984). Again, here, no evidence shows any problem with
the traffic routes available to this location.
A valid consideration is whether the surrounding area is substantially commercial. Taylor v. Lewis,
261 S.C. 168, 198 S.E.2d 801 (1973); Ronald Byers v. S.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm'n,,
281 S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984). Here, the area is primarily commercial with several
nearby establishments including a barber shop, an automobile maintenance shop, two car dealers,
and a family dental clinic.
Also, a consideration is the extent to which children are in the area of the proposed location. Smith
v. Pratt, 258 S.C. 504, 189 S.E.2d 301 (1972). The evidence does not show the presence of children.
Finally, consideration may be given to whether other similar businesses that sell beer and wine or
alcohol already exist within the area and whether in the recent past beer and wine have been sold at
the same location by former owners and whether the evidence shows that the location is now any less
suitable than during the former time period. Taylor v. Lewis, 261 S.C. 168, 198 S.E.2d 801 (1973).
Here, several other beer and wine and minibottle locations are within the area and the current
location has sold beer and wine and minibottles for at least four years without incident.
2. Moral Grounds
Certainly, one must respect the moral grounds of an individual to abstain from the purchase and
consumption of alcohol and the right not to be disturbed by those who do chose to buy and drink
beer, wine, or liquor. Corwin v. Board of Liquor Control, 164 N.E.2d 412 (Ohio 1960) ("We would
not imply that an objection to the issuance of a permit on moral grounds should be ignored by the
director in determining the advisability of issuing the permit. The opposition of many religious
denominations to the sale and use of intoxicants is a commendable one that should not be lightly
regarded.").
However, the suitability of a proposed location for the sale of alcoholic beverages cannot be found
wanting based only on the religious convictions of opponents to an application. Rather, in South
Carolina, the sale of alcoholic beverages is a lawful enterprise which is regulated by the State. One
aspect of that regulation is a determination that the proposed location will be a proper one.
In this case, I have considered all of the factors relevant to the proposed location and have given due
weight to the evidence presented at the hearing. The proposed location is not within an improper
proximity to residences, schools, churches, and playgrounds. Further, other location factors do not
deny the current application for a beer and wine permit and a minibottle license. S.C. Code Ann.
§ 61-4-520 (Supp. 2003). Accordingly, Copeland's application seeks a renewal of a beer and wine
permit and a sale and consumption (minibottle) license for a location that is a proper location.
IV. Order
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ordered:
DOR is ordered to grant John B. Copeland's application for a renewal of a beer and wine permit and
a sale and consumption (minibottle) license at 92 Hwy. 72 W., Abbeville, South Carolina
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: April 15, 2004
Columbia, South Carolina |
