ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division on the application of Jodi L.
Hughes, d/b/a Palmetto Lanes for an on-premises beer and wine permit for a bowling alley located
at 1029 Peachtree Street in Clinton, South Carolina. After notice to the parties, a hearing was
conducted on April 21, 1997. Based upon the evidence presented, the beer and wine permit is
GRANTED. Any issues raised in the proceeding or hearing of this matter that are not addressed in
this Order are deemed denied. ALJD Rule 29B.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant, Jodi L. Hughes, is over the age of twenty-one and is a life-long resident
of South Carolina and the United States.
2. She has never been convicted of a crime and is a person of good moral character.
3. Ms. Hughes has not held any beer and wine permits in her name, but for at least
twelve years, she has managed several bowling facilities in which beer and wine were served. To her
knowledge, no citations were written against those locations for violation of laws relating to the sale
of beer and wine.
4. Notice of the application was advertised in The Clinton Chronicle during the weeks
of August 21, 28 and September 4, 1996. Notice was also posted at the proposed location for the
time period required.
5. The proposed location is Palmetto Lanes and Billiards at 1029 Peachtree Street in
Clinton, South Carolina. The business is a bowling alley and cafe. There are also video game
machines in a side room and seven pool tables in another side room.
6. Access to the pool tables is restricted to persons twenty-one years of age or older who
must present identification at the service counter and obtain the pool cues and balls. There are video
poker machines located along the wall outside of the room where the other video games are located.
This wall is in full view of the counter.
7. If granted the permit, the bar would be located in the room with the pool tables. No
beer would be sold until after 6:00 p.m. Beer would only be sold in clear plastic cups. Other
beverages are sold in plastic or paper cups that are not clear. Sale and consumption of beer would
be allowed in the bowling area as well as the pool room and only to persons who are participating
in these activities.
8. The hours of operation are Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, 1 p.m. to 11
p.m.; Wednesday, 9 a.m. to 11 p.m.; Friday 1 p.m. to midnight; and Saturday 9 a.m. to midnight.
There are approximately six or seven employees on the premises during business hours.
9. At the corner of Highway 76 (W. Carolina Ave.) and Peachtree Street, there is a gas
station convenience store that sells beer and wine to go. This business is in the same block as the
bowling alley. The gas station is approximately 1132 feet from the proposed location and less than
200 feet from a residence.
10. There are other locations not in the immediate vicinity that sell beer and wine for off-premises consumption.
11. Lydia Presbyterian Church is located one-half mile from the proposed location. The
Lydia Church of God is located approximately six-tenths of one mile from the proposed location.
The closest residence is over five hundred feet from the proposed location.
12. The application was protested by many members of the community including the
principal of Bell Street Middle School.
13. Bell Street Middle School is located on the opposite side of Peachtree Street just past
the bowling alley. The sidewalk leading to the school is on the opposite side of the street from the
proposed location. Beginning at the access road and continuing on Peachtree Street away from the
proposed location, the school is fenced.
14. There is a small access road/driveway leading from Peachtree Street to the front of
the school. The distance from the proposed location to the entrance of the school from the driveway
drop off point is 534 feet. The distance from the proposed location to the beginning of the driveway
at Peachtree Street is 409 feet.
15. The school has many after school and athletic activities throughout the school year
which may occur in the evening.
16. The middle school children walk past the location and often frequent the bowling
alley after school. Hughes allows the students to use a public phone located in the facility at no cost.
Several children are picked up by their parents at the bowling alley.
17. The protestors expressed concern about the consumption of beer from open containers
and around school children aged 11 to 14; the possibility of consumption and driving while
intoxicated; the amount of beer bottle litter already in the area; and the unavailability of controls
within the bowling alley to restrict access to beer while people are bowling in the lanes.
18. There is a lot of litter in the bowling alley parking lot and across the street along the
sidewalk. This litter includes beer bottles. Hughes picks up the trash in the parking lot each
morning. Neither the school principal nor the representative of the parent organization of the school
observed any problem with the trash.
19. The bowling alley does not allow food or beverages in the bowling lanes and provides
tables behind the bowlers for placement of food and drink. The protestors feel that there is not
sufficient control over the beverages left at the tables to allow consumption of beer.
20. The primary objection, however, seems to be a general concern about the presence
of open containers of beer where children are located. The protestors do not object to the
convenience store and do not appear to object to the empty broken beer bottles located in the area
which indicate the possibility of drinking and driving.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law, the following:
1. The Administrative Law Judge Division is vested with the powers, duties and
responsibilities of the former Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission and hearing officers pursuant
to Chapter 23 of Title 1. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1995).
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-9-320(6) (Supp. 1995) provides the statutory requirements for
the issuance of on-premises beer and wine permits. It provides that no permit authorizing the sale
of beer or wine may be issued unless "[t]he location of the proposed place of business of the
applicant is in the opinion of the department a proper one. The department may consider, among
other factors, as indication of unsuitable location, the proximity to residences, schools, playgrounds,
and churches...."
3. As trier of fact, the Administrative Law Judge is authorized to decide the fitness or
suitability of the proposed business location for a permit to sell beer and wine using broad, but not
unbridled, discretion. Byers v. S.C. ABC Comm'n, 281 S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984).
4. Although "proper location" is not statutorily defined, broad discretion has been vested
in the finder of fact 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); Smith v. Pratt, 258 S.C. 504, 189 S.E.2d 301
(1972); and Taylor v. Lewis, 261 S.C.168, 198 S.E.2d 801 (1973).
5. The determination of suitability of the proposed location is not necessarily a function
solely of geography. It may involve an infinite variety of considerations related to the nature and
operation 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).
6. There has been no evidentiary showing that the present location is unsuitable or that
the issuance of an on-premises beer and wine permit would 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 support by facts.
Taylor v. Lewis, supra; Smith v. Pratt, supra.
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 residents protest the issuance
of the permit is not a sufficient reason by itself to deny the application. See 45 Am. Jur. 2d
Intoxicating Liquors § 162 (Supp. 1994); 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors § 119 (1981).
9. Petitioner meets all statutory requirements for the issuance of an on-premises beer
and wine permit. In addition she has twelve years of experience in bowling facilities that serve beer
and wine. During that time, there have been no problems with underage consumption of beer and
wine.
10. The location is suitable for the issuance of an on-premises beer and wine permit.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the application of Jodi L. Hughes, d/b/a Palmetto Lanes for an on-premises beer
and wine permit for the location at 1029 Peachtree Street in Clinton, South Carolina is GRANTED.
The Department shall issue an on-premises beer and wine permit upon the payment of the
appropriate fees.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
ALISON RENEE LEE
Administrative Law Judge
August 7, 1997
Columbia, South Carolina |