ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1993) and S.C.
Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310, et seq. (Rev. 1986 & Supp. 1993) upon an application for an on-premises
beer and wine permit for 201 Chapel Street, Latta, South Carolina, by Theresa Eaddy with the South
Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation (hereinafter referred to as "DOR"). A hearing was
held on February 7, 1995. Notice of the hearing was given by certified mail to the applicant.
Applicant failed to appear or contact the court to request a continuance. The hearing was conducted
in Applicant's absence. The issues considered were: (1) the applicant's eligibility to hold a permit;
(2) the suitability of the proposed business location; and (3) the nature of the proposed business
activity. The permit application is hereby denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT
By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:
(1) Applicant seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit for a location at 201 Chapel
Street, Latta, South Carolina, having filed an application with DOR, AI #99879.
(2) Notice of the time, date, place, and subject matter of the hearing was given to
Applicant, protestants, and DOR.
(3) Applicant received notice of the hearing via certified mail, return receipt signed and
dated by Applicant December 1, 1994.
(4) After allowing twenty (20) minutes from the scheduled time of commencement of the
hearing and announcing in the hall the beginning of the proceedings, the hearing was conducted
with Applicant in absentia.
(5) The DOR file was incorporated into the record of the hearing without objection.
(6) The following persons appeared as protestants and testified in opposition to the
application at the hearing: Chief A.M. Gerald, Latta Police Department; Deputy Dewitt Coleman,
Dillon County Sheriff's Department; and, Agent E.L. McNeill, SLED Alcohol Enforcement Unit. .
(7) The proposed location is located just outside of the Town of Latta in Dillon County.
(8) The proposed location has been licensed in the past, under various licensees, to sell
beer and wine.
(9) The proposed location is within a residential area plagued by teenage loitering,
violence, drug distribution and use, and other problems.
(10) While the proposed location was previously licensed, law enforcement officials had
constant calls and problems with disturbances with patrons of the establishment involving
shootings, trespassing, public drunkenness, and other illegal conduct.
(11) Applicant is over twenty-one (21) years of age.
(12) It is unclear whether Applicant is a citizen of the State of South Carolina
maintaining her principal residence in South Carolina.
(13) Applicant has not had a permit revoked in the last two years.
(14) There is no evidence that Applicant is not of good moral character.
(15) Notice of the application appeared in a newspaper of general circulation in the area
of the proposed location for three consecutive weeks and was posted at the proposed location for
fifteen days.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:
(1) The South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division is empowered to hear this
case pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1993) and Chapter 23 of Title I of the 1976
Code, as amended.
(2) S.C. Code Ann. § 61-9-320 (Supp. 1993) provides the criteria to be met before
issuance of a beer and wine permit.
(3) Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-3-730 (Supp. 1993), a permit must not be issued if
the applicant is not a suitable person to be licensed, the place of business is not a suitable place, or
a sufficient number of licenses have already been issued in the State, municipality, or community.
(4) As the trier of fact, an administrative law judge is authorized to determine the fitness
or suitability of the proposed business location of an applicant for a permit to sell beer and wine
using broad but not unbridled discretion. Ronald F. Byers v. S.C. ABC Commission,
316 S.E.2d 705 (S.C. App. 1984).
(5) The proposed location is unsuitable for the sale of beer and wine because of the
proximity of residences, the past history of the location involving criminal activity, and the
likelihood that such activity would occur if the location were licensed again.
(6) Applicant is in default, and dismissal of the case adversely to Applicant pursuant to
Rule 23, Temporary Operating Procedures of the Administrative Law Judge Division is in order.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that DOR deny the on-premises beer and wine permit
applied for.
_____________________________________
STEPHEN P. BATES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
February ____, 1995
Columbia, South Carolina |
