ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Court (Court) pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §61-2-90 (Supp. 2003) and S. C. Code Ann. §§1-23-310 et seq. (1986 and Supp. 2003) for a contested case
hearing. The Petitioner Anderson Lodge 2018, Loyal Order of Moose, Inc. (Anderson Moose Lodge) is a
nonprofit civic service organization, affiliated with the national Loyal Order of Moose, Inc. It seeks an
on-premise beer and wine permit and a nonprofit private club minibottle license. The Department would
have issued the permit and license but for the protest.
A hearing was held on this case on April 21, 2004, at the offices of the Court in Columbia, South
Carolina. The parties and protestant were present as shown above.
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 persuasion by the parties, I make the following
Findings of Fact by a preponderance of evidence:
1.Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was given to the
Petitioner, Respondent and the Protestant.
2.The proposed location for the Anderson Moose Lodge is 3871 Highway 24, Anderson,
South Carolina. The Petitioner seeks an on-premise beer and wine permit and a nonprofit private club
minibottle license on behalf of a nonprofit organization. The proposed hours of operation are Monday
through Thursday, 5:00 PM to 11:00 PM, Friday 5:00 PM to 1:00 AM , Saturday 12:00 noon to 1:00 AM,
and Sunday 12 12:00 noon to 11:00 PM. The capacity of the club is 205 people. Membership is limited
to members of the Loyal Order of Moose, a national charitable and civic service organization.
3.The qualifications set forth in S. C. Code Ann. §§ 61-4-520 and 61-6-1820 (Supp. 2003)
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. Notice of the application was also
lawfully posted both at the location and in a newspaper of general circulation. The State Law
Enforcement Division’s background check on the principals of the club did not find any criminal records.
4.The proposed location is down the road from the Solid Rock Holiness Church in an area
that is both commercial and residential. There are wooded areas across the street, commercial buildings
near the locations and homes down Highway 24, a major highway.
5. The club members plan to use the proceeds from the sale of alcohol at their club to fund
their service projects. Although they do plan to offer occasional live music and karoke, the proposed
location has 7" of insulation in the walls which will help control sound.
6.The Protestant’s objections to the Petitioner’s permit and license are based upon the
location of the Anderson Moose Lodge and the Protestant’s moral opposition to the consumption of
alcohol. The Protestant feels that the proposed location may cause problems, including noise, traffic,
driving under the influence, alcohol consumption, fights, foul language and disorderly conduct. Reverend
Butler showed a videotape where he measured the distance between the church and the Lodge and found
it to be less than 500 feet. He did not, however, measure from the street to the door of either building.
The SLED report included as part of Respondent’s Exhibit 1, showed the distance to be 536 feet. There
was no specific evidence offered to establish that the Petitioner’s current location and club did not have a
reputation for peace and good order.
Additionally, the Department of Revenue, which is the governmental body charged with
regulating and enforcing violations concerning permits and licenses involving the sale of beer, wine or
alcohol, did not object to the granting of a permit or license in this case. Notably, no law enforcement
officials in the City or County of Anderson protested this license and permit.I find the witnesses for the Petitioner credible. Their prior location was licensed for a total of 20
years and no law enforcement problems or alcohol violations occurred during that time. The new location
has not had any disturbance service calls, and the Moose Lodge is a family-oriented, service organization.
Therefore, the applicants are fit and the proposed location is suitable for an on-premise beer and wine
permit and a nonprofit private club minibottle 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. 2003) grants jurisdiction to the Administrative Law
Court to hear contested cases under the Administrative Procedures Act. Additionally, S.C. Code Ann. §
61-2-260 (Supp. 2003) specifically grants the Administrative Law Court the responsibilities to determine
contested matters governing alcoholic beverages, beer and wine.
2.S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 (Supp. 2003) sets forth the requirements for the issuance of an
on-premise beer and wine permit. Specifically, Section 61-4-520(1) provides in part that to receive a beer
and wine permit the Petitioner must show that "[t]he applicant, any partner or co-shareholder of the
applicant, and each agent, employee, and servant of the applicant to be employed on the licensed premises
are of good moral character."
3. 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.
2003) are met. That section requires that the principals and applicants must not only be of good moral
character, but they must also have a reputation for peace and good order. Additionally, Section 61-6-1820
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. 2003).
4.S.C. Code Ann. 61-6-20(6) (Supp. 2003) establishes that a nonprofit organization is not
open to the general public and only the members and guests of the club may consume alcoholic beverages
upon the premises.
5.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). As the trier of fact, the Administrative Law Judge is authorized to
determine the fitness or suitability of the Petitioner and the proposed business location for a license or
permit using broad, but not unbridled, discretion. Byers v. South Carolina ABC Commission, 281 S.C.
566, 316 S.E. 2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984). The determination of suitability of a 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).
6.Without sufficient evidence of a specific adverse 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 or license 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).
7.It is relevant 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. Byers v.
South Carolina ABC Commission, 281 S.C. 566, 316 S.E. 2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984). The only specific,
concrete objection voiced by the Protestant with respect to the Anderson Moose Lodge or this particular
location was refuted by the measurements of SLED. The other objections addressed general concerns,
such as the possibility of accidents caused by drunk drivers, and religious and moral opposition. The
Protestant’ convictions are strong; however, their arguments do not rise to the level of adequate grounds
to prevent issuance of the license.
8.Standards for judging the suitability of a proposed location for the sale of beer, wine
or liquor are not determined by a local community’s religious convictions. Criteria must be uniform,
objective, constant and consistent throughout the State. The sale of beer, wine or liquor is a lawful
enterprise in South Carolina, regulated by the State. Li’l Cricket Food Stores, Inc., d/b/a Li’l Cricket Food
Store #346 v. SC DOR, 02-ALJ-17-0172 (2002).
Therefore, the Petitioner meets the statutory requirements for holding a beer and wine permit and
a nonprofit private club minibottle license as a nonprofit organization at the proposed location.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the application of Anderson Moose Lodge, for an on-premise beer and wine
permit and a nonprofit private club minibottle license as a nonprofit organization, be issued upon payment
of the required fees and costs by the Petitioner.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________
CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS
Administrative Law Judge
April 28, 2004
Columbia, South Carolina |
