ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me on the application of Jesse M. Corbett for an on-premises beer
and wine permit for the Sum Fun Game Room located at 812 Springfield Road in Springfield, South
Carolina. After notice to the parties and protestors, a hearing was conducted on December 9, 1994.
At the hearing, residents Ken Creekmore, Carolyn Hutson and Kathleen Fanning, the mayor
requested to be made parties without objection. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant, Jesse M. Corbett, is a seventy-one year old resident of the State. He
has been a resident all of his life and is a legal resident of the United States. He has no criminal
record and is a person of good moral character.
2. A temporary license to sell beer and wine was issued to Corbett in April 1994 in
connection with a public festival. There were no incidents involving this permit. No other permits
have been issued and there have been no suspensions or revocations of any permits or licenses.
3. The proposed location is in the Town of Springfield on the main street. It is primarily
a commercial district with some residences in the area. The hours of operation are 10:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. Monday through Saturday. Weekend hours may be extended to close at 9:30 p.m. on Friday
and 10:30 p.m. on Saturday. The location has two pool tables, three pinball machines, a juke box,
rest rooms, a full service kitchen, and new tables and chairs. Corbett hopes to obtain video poker
machines for the location.
4. The business is currently operated by Katie Jenkins. She does not have any criminal
record and will manage the business for Corbett.
5. There are at least two churches in the vicinity both are more than 500 feet from the
location. There are no schools or playgrounds in the area. There is a bank on the corner next to the
game room.
6. The residents in the area protest the application on the basis that there is loitering at
the game room, vulgar language, and trash thrown on their property. One resident who lives behind
the location is concerned about the language and is afraid because people loiter all day in the rear of
the location next to her property line. The residents also complain that people drink at or around the
location even though there is no permit at the location. Residents who transact business in town have
been verbally abused by people standing around outside of this location. According to the Mayor,
there is a lack of police protection for the location, the location is an "eyesore" in the middle of town,
and people congregate outside. The protestors also complain that Corbett is not a resident and does
not frequent the business often enough to have an idea about the problems at the location.
7. There are other locations in the area which sell beer and wine to go and some that sell
beer and wine for on-premises consumption. There is also a retail liquor store in the same block as
the proposed location.
8. Notice of the application was posted at the location and published in The Times and
Democrat newspaper for the required time period.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. 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).
2. S. C. Code §61-9-320 (Supp. 1993) provides the statutory requirements for the
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).
3. 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).
4. The current location is not a proper one for on-premises consumption of beer and
wine. There is already a problem with loitering outside of the location. The business is located in
the center of town where people come to conduct their business affairs. The residents have been
harassed by people loitering outside of the location. There are other locations in the immediate
vicinity that provide alcoholic beverages. Police protection is currently being provided to this
location and there is no evidence that protection could not continue but the problem is the loitering
and disruptive behavior of the people outside of the game room. Although Corbett states that the
people loitering are not on property he rents, they are connected with his business and he has taken
no steps to alleviate the loitering problem.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Sum Fun Game Room is not
a proper location for an on-premises beer and wine permit. Therefore, it is
ORDERED, that the application of Jesse M. Corbett for an on-premises beer and wine
permit for 812 Springfield Road in Springfield, South Carolina is DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________
ALISON RENEE LEE
Administrative Law Judge
January _____, 1995
Columbia, South Carolina |
