ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division
on the application of Thomas Linnen for an on-premises beer and
wine permit for a club located in Georgetown County. After notice
to the parties and the protestants, a hearing was held on May 5,
1994 to determine whether a permit should be issued for this
location. The file of the Department of Revenue and Taxation was
made a part of the record without objection. A copy is substituted
for the original. Based upon the evidence and the testimony
presented I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Thomas Lee Linnen is a thirty-nine year old resident of
Georgetown, South Carolina who is leasing a building in a partly
rural area off State Highway 51 in Georgetown County where he hopes
to operate a club. The building previously had been operated as a
nightclub and was permitted to sell beer and wine or alcoholic
beverages. In the past the club experienced some problems with the
law. Linnen did not operate the club during this time.
Although the building is surrounded by woods, the area
residents are very vocal in their displeasure with the possibility
of the club being licensed to sell any type of alcoholic beverages.
Linnen wants to use the club to promote the talents of the
community youth. He proposes to operate the club every other
weekend for some youth activity without serving beer and wine. On
the alternate weekends beer and wine would be sold at the club to
provide revenue for the continued operation of the youth events.
The building is not located near any school, churches, or
playgrounds. Residents in the area object to the issuance of the
permit because of the increased noise in the area and they fear the
club will attract an undesirable group of patrons which would
trigger a recurrence of the previous problems with violence in the
vicinity. The community residents were represented by a Georgetown
County Sheriff Deputy who expressed concern over the past history
of violence and possible illicit drug activity. The building is
located more than eleven miles from Georgetown and the response
time of the Sheriff's department would be limited. There are no
other establishments in the area open to the general public that
are licensed to sell alcoholic beverages.
The required notice was published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the county and was posted in front of the building
for the requisite time period.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Administrative Law Judge Division is vested with the
powers, duties and responsibilities exercised by the former
Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission and hearing officers pursuant
to Chapter 23 of Title 1. S.C. Code of Laws § 61-1-55 (Supp.
1993). S.C. Code § 61-9-320 (Supp. 1993) provides the statutory
requirements for this issuance of beer and wine permits. It states
in part:
No permit authorizing the sale of beer or wine
may be issued unless:
...
(6) The 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
indications of unsuitable location, the
proximity to residences, schools, playgrounds,
and churches. This item does not apply to
locations licensed before its effective date.
S.C. Code § 61-9-320 (6) (Supp. 1993).
Although "proper location" is not statutorily defined, "rather
broad discretion is vested in the Commission in determining the
fitness or suitability of a particular location." Fast Stops, Inc.
v. Ingram, 276 S.C. 593, 281 S.E.2d 181 (S.C. 1981). This
determination of suitability is not solely a function of geography,
but involves an infinite variety of considerations related to the
nature and operation of the proposed business and its impact upon
the community where it is to be situated. Kearney v. Allen, 287
S.C. 324, 338 S.E.2d 335 (S.C. 1985); Schudel v. S.C. ABC
Commission, 276 S.C. 138, 276 S.E.2d 308 (S.C. 1981).
The location of the proposed business is not within close
proximity to any school, church or playground. In the instant
case, it is the nature and operation of the proposed business in
addition to the previous incidents of possible criminal activity
that dictate that a license not be issued. The applicant wants an
establishment to foster better relations with the youth of the
community and to provide a positive environment for these
residents. The area residents do not object to the goals of the
applicant but object to the availability of beer and wine in an
establishment catering to the youth. The dangers associated with
youth and their potential to consume alcoholic beverages have been
studied a great deal. The media coverage and campaigns devoted to
"just say no" to alcohol and drugs indicate the grave concern not
just of this community but of the state and nation as a whole.
While the applicant's motives are most laudable, the concerns
expressed and the beliefs that there must be other ways to provide
a positive environment must be seriously considered.
The adequacy of police protection for a proposed location is
a proper consideration for determining suitability for a proposed
location. See Terry v. Pratt, 258 S.C. 177, 187 S.E.2d 884 (S.C.
1972). Evidence indicated that the police response time would be
very slow in this area. The concerns of police protection in the
community and the past incidents of questionable activity on the
premises when previously licensed also indicate that the location
is not a suitable one for the issuance of a beer and wine permit.
ORDER
Although the applicant meets the other statutory requirements
to hold a license, based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law relating to the location and nature of the business, an on-premise beer and wine permit should not be issued to this location.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED, that the application of Thomas L. Linnen for an
on-premises beer and wine permit is DENIED.
_______________________
ALISON RENEE LEE
Administrative Law Judge
June __, 1994
Columbia, South Carolina |
