ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
I. Statement of the Case
Mary Ann Green (Green) filed with the South Carolina Department of Revenue (DOR), an
application for an on-premises beer and wine permit for 96 Delaney Circle, Seabrook, South
Carolina. Protests were filed pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Sec. 61-4-525 by William and Kathey
Sammons and by Jeff and Debbie Halker seeking to prevent DOR from granting the application.
Contested case jurisdiction vests in the Administrative Law Court (ALC) under S.C. Code Ann.
Secs. 61-2-260 (Supp. 2004), 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 2004) and 1-23-310 (Supp. 2004).
II. Issue
Not all of the requirements for obtaining a beer and wine permit are disputed here. Rather the
issue is whether Green meets the requirements for an on-premises beer and wine permit in light
of an allegation that the location is improper.
III. Analysis
A. Findings of Fact
Based on the preponderance of the evidence, the following findings of fact are entered:
1. General Facts of Location
Green filed an application with the Department of Revenue for an on-premises beer and wine
permit. The application is identified by DOR as AI # 32034690-6. The applicant and the location
were investigated by SLED and the investigating agent drew a map generally depicting the
immediate area of the proposed location. Following the notices posted by SLED and by the
applicant, William and Kathey Sammons and Jeff and Debbie Halker challenged the application.
The hearing for this dispute was held March 31, 2005, with notice of the date, time, place and
subject matter of the hearing given to the applicant, DOR, and the protestants.
The proposed business (and the place where the beer and wine permit will be utilized) is located
at 96 Delaney Circle, Seabrook, South Carolina. The business is a bar with a pool table with the
hours of operation being 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday. The proposed
location previously operated as Mag's Snack Shop for a number of years and held a beer and
wine permit. However, the former operator allowed the permit to expire on February 28, 2003.
The current applicant filed for a permit on or about July 27, 2004.
2. Specific Facts of Location
a. Statutory Proximity Factors
The area is highly residential. In fact, no commercial establishments are in the immediate area.
Rather, the area is home to a local church, Second Gethsemane Baptist Church and numerous
residences. The church is on Stuart Point Road near the Delaney Circle entrance to the
neighborhood. The closest residence to the proposed location is 112 feet away and is occupied
by the applicant. The next nearest residence is next door at a distance of 175 feet, a third is 224
feet, and a fourth is 230 feet from the proposed location. In fact, the entire area along Delaney
Circle consists of residences exceeding 30 on or adjacent to Delaney Circle.
b. Other Factors
The area near 96 Delaney Circle, Seabrook, South Carolina evidences some criminal activity.
Records of law enforcement from the Beaufort County Sheriff's Office from August 2003 to
August 2004 show 30 incident reports attributed to Delaney Street with the vast majority arising
from domestic disturbances. In addition, 123 calls for service were received from Delaney
Circle during the same period. The distance to the nearest Sheriff's substation or office is
approximately 12 miles.
No other establishments in the immediate hold either a beer and wine permit or an alcohol
license.
B. Conclusions of Law
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1. Law of Location Applied to Location Facts
a. Proximity Factors
Under S.C. Code Ann. Sec. 61-4-520 (Supp. 2004), no beer and wine permit may be granted
unless the location of the place of business is a proper location. In general, consideration may be
given to any factors that demonstrate the adverse effect the proposed location will have on the
community. Palmer v. S.C. ABC Comm'n, 282 S.C. 246, 317 S.E.2d 476 (Ct. App. 1984).
Geography alone is not the sole consideration of suitability, but rather any impact on the
community must be considered. Kearney v. Allen, 287 S.C. 324, 338 S.E.2d 335 (1985).
A major consideration to deciding whether an adverse impact is caused to the community is
assessing the proximity of the location to residences and churches. 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). Indeed, the sole factor of an improper proximity to any one of the
institutions of residences, churches, schools, or playgrounds is a proper basis for denying a beer
and wine permit. Id.
Here, the immediate area is highly residential with a church near the entrance to the community.
Residences are on either side and across the street from the proposed location. In fact, the entire
area along Delaney Circle consists of residences exceeding 30 on or adjacent to Delaney Circle.
Thus, on the whole, the location is improper since it is surrounded by residential uses and is an
improper location for an on-premises beer and wine permit.
b. Other Location Factors: Other
A proper consideration for reviewing a beer and wine permit is examining the impact granting
the permit will have upon law enforcement. Fowler v. Lewis, 260 S.C. 54, 194 S.E.2d 191
(1973). Here, the records of law enforcement from the Beaufort County Sheriff's Office from
August 2003 to August 2004 show 30 incident reports attributed to Delaney Street with the vast
majority arising from domestic disturbances. In addition, 123 calls for service were received
from Delaney Circle during the same period. Such a record of disturbance is of concern given
that the distance to the nearest Sheriff's substation or office is approximately 12 miles. Thus, the
degree of crime already present in the area combined with the distance to the nearest law
enforcement center makes this location improper for an on-premises beer and wine permit.
The degree to which an area is substantially commercial is relevant. 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, no commercial establishments are in the area.
Thus, the area is not compatible with an on-premises beer and wine permit.
In like manner, consideration may be given to whether other similar businesses that sell beer and
wine or alcohol already exist within the area. Taylor v. Lewis, 261 S.C. 168, 198 S.E.2d 801
(1973). Here, no such establishments exist.
2. Ultimate Conclusion as to Location
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 within an improper proximity
to residences. Further, other location factors of crime in the area, lack of commercial
development, and no similar businesses in the immediate area require denying the requested beer
and wine permit. Accordingly, Green's application seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit
for a location that is not a proper location.
IV. Order
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ordered:
DOR must deny Mary Ann Green's application for an on-premises beer and wine permit at 96
Delaney Circle, Seabrook, South Carolina.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: June 1 , 2005
Columbia, South Carolina |
