ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1994) and
S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310, et seq. (Supp. 1994) for a hearing pursuant to the application of
Bobby T. Brown. The applicant seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit (AI 101583) for a
social club located at 291 Old Rocky Creek Road, Fairfield County, South Carolina.
After timely notice to the parties and the protestant, a hearing was held at the
Administrative Law Judge Division in Columbia, South Carolina. One protestant of record
appeared, Sheriff Herman W. Young, Fairfield County Sheriff's Department. The protestant did
not move to intervene as a party. The issues considered at the hearing were: (1) the applicant's
eligibility to hold a beer and wine permit; (2) the suitability of the proposed business location; and
(3) the nature of the proposed business activity.
The application for an on-premises beer and wine permit is hereby granted, with
conditions and restrictions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony and arguments presented at the hearing of this
matter, and taking into account the credibility and accuracy of the evidence, I make the following
Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. The applicant seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit for a social club located
outside the city limits of Great Falls, within the county of Fairfield, at 291 Old Rocky Creek
Road.
2. The South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation's ("DOR") file was
made a part of the record by reference with the consent of the petitioner and the protestant.
3. The proposed location is situated directly off of Old Rocky Creek Road and the
area surrounding the proposed location is predominantly residential in nature.
4. No church, school, or playground is within close proximity to the proposed
location.
5. Barbara White has held an on-premises beer and wine permit at the proposed
location, d/b/a The Stepping Stone, for approximately twenty (20) years without any violations.
6. The proposed location is leased to the applicant by Otis White, the husband of
Barbara White and current manager of The Stepping Stone.
7. The proposed location does not currently provide parking accommodations for its
patrons, which results in patrons parking on the shoulder of Old Rocky Creek Road.
8. The proposed location has an occupancy capacity of approximately one hundred
persons.
9. The applicant has never held a beer and wine permit or other license for the sale or
consumption of alcoholic beverages.
10. The applicant intends to operate the proposed location as a social club with
activities such as dancing, eating, drinking, and the playing of video games. The proposed hours
of operation are Thursday through Friday from 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., and Saturday from 6:00
p.m. to 12:00 a.m.
11. Sheriff Herman W. Young of the Fairfield County Sheriff's Department testified in
opposition to the application. As justification for denial of the beer and wine permit, the
protestant cited (1) congestion of the area; (2) problems with parking on the side of the road; (3)
drug activities in the area of the proposed location; and (4) public safety concerns.
12. The Fairfield County Sheriff's Department has been called to the proposed location
approximately three (3) times in the past year.
13. The area in which the proposed location is situated has had a problem with drug
activity and random shootings.
14. No evidence was offered to establish any criminal activity occurring at the
proposed location.
13. The applicant is of good moral character.
14. The applicant will operate and manage the social club.
15. The applicant is at least 21 years of age, a U.S. citizen, a citizen of the State of
South Carolina, and has maintained her principal residence in the state for at least thirty (30) days
prior to the date of making application for an on-premises beer and wine permit.
16. Notice of the application appeared in The News and Reporter, a newspaper of
general circulation in the area of the proposed location, for three (3) consecutive weeks and
notice was posted at the proposed location for fifteen (15) days.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:
1. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1994) authorizes the South Carolina
Administrative Law Judge Division to hear this case pursuant to Chapter 23 of Title I of the 1976
Code, as amended.
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-9-320 (Supp. 1994) establishes the criteria for the issuance
of a beer and wine permit.
3. Although "proper location" is not statutorily defined, broad discretion is vested in
the Division in determining the fitness or suitability of a particular location. Fast Stops, Inc. v.
Ingram, 276 S.C. 593, 281 S.E.2d 181 (1981).
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. South Carolina ABC Comm'n,
281 S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984).
5. The determination of suitability of a location is not necessarily a function solely of
geography. It involves 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); Schudel v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 276
S.C. 138, 276 S.E.2d 308 (1981).
6. "A liquor license or permit may properly be refused on the ground that the
location of the establishment would adversely affect the public interest, that the nature of the
neighborhood and of the premises is such that the establishment would be detrimental to the
welfare . . . of the inhabitants, or that the manner of conducting the establishment would not be
conducive to the general welfare of the community." 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors § 121 at 501
(1981).
7. In determining whether a proposed location is suitable, it is proper for this tribunal
to consider any evidence that shows adverse circumstances of location. Smith v. Pratt, 258 S.C.
504, 189 S.E.2d 301 (1972); Palmer v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 282 S.C. 246, 317 S.E.2d
476 (Ct. App. 1984); See also Moore v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 308 S.C. 167, 417 S.E.2d
557 (1991).
8. The applicant satisfies all statutory requirements for holding an on-premises beer
and wine permit and with the conditions and restrictions set forth below, the proposed location is
proper for the issuance of an on-premises beer and wine permit.
9. Permits and licenses issued by the State for the sale of liquor, beer, and wine are
not rights or property, but are privileges granted in the exercise of the police power of the State
to be used and enjoyed only so long as the restrictions and conditions governing them are
complied with. As the tribunal authorized to grant the issuance of a permit is also authorized, for
cause, to revoke it, that tribunal is likewise authorized to place restrictions or conditions on the
permit or license. See Feldman v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22
(1943).
11. 23 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 7-88 (1976), authorizing the imposition of restrictions to
permits, provides:
Any stipulation and/or agreement which is voluntarily entered into by an
applicant in writing for a beer and wine permit between the applicant and the
South Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, if accepted by the
Commission, will be incorporated into the basic requirements for the enjoyment
and privilege of obtaining and retaining the beer and wine permit and which shall
have the same effect as any and all laws and any and all other regulations
pertaining to the effective administration of beer and wine permits and permittees.
In the event that evidence is presented to this Commission that any part of
the stipulation or agreement is or has been knowingly broken by the permittee will
be a violation against the permit and shall constitute sufficient grounds to suspend
or revoke said beer and wine permit.
CONDITIONS
1. The applicant agrees, as a condition to the issuance of an on-premises beer and
wine permit, that he will secure "adequate" parking for his patrons which shall consist of parking
capacity for at least fifty (50) cars.
2. The applicant agrees, as a condition to the issuance of an on-premises beer and
wine permit, that he will install at least two (2) mercury vapor pole lanterns in the immediate area
surrounding the proposed location to provide security lighting.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the application of Bobby T. Brown for an on-premises beer and wine
permit for a location at 291 Old Rocky Creek Road, county of Fairfield, South Carolina, be
granted upon the applicant signing a written agreement to be filed with DOR to adhere to the
following restrictions:
1. The applicant shall strictly prohibit patrons at the proposed location from loitering
outside.
2. The applicant shall strictly prohibit patrons from parking along the shoulder of Old
Rocky Creek Road..
3. The applicant shall contract with a bonded security company or an off-duty law
enforcement officer, as is permissible under the law, to have a security guard on duty during
operating hours to patrol the area immediately surrounding the proposed location. Further, the
applicant shall have an employee stationed inside the proposed location with a metal detector to
monitor each patron entering the proposed location.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a violation of any of the above restrictions is
considered a violation against the permit and may result in a fine, suspension, or revocation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Department of Revenue and Taxation issue an
on-premises beer and wine permit upon payment of the required fee(s) and cost(s) by the
applicant and compliance with the above stated conditions.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
Edgar A. Brown Building
1205 Pendleton Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
April 26, 1995 |
