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
Rickey J. Jackson. The applicant seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit (AI 100231) for a
pool room located at 921 Broad Street, within the city of Camden, county of Kershaw, South
Carolina.
After timely notice to the parties and the protestants, a hearing was held at the
Administrative Law Judge Division in Columbia, South Carolina. One of two protestants of
record appeared, Chief Jack B. Cobb, Camden Police 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 a
restriction.
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 pool room located
within the city of Camden at 921 Broad Street.
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 Broad Street and the area
surrounding the proposed location is predominantly commercial in nature. Frank's Bar is located
to the left of the proposed location and is licensed to sell beer and wine. The building to the right
of the proposed location is currently vacant. Other businesses in the direct vicinity of the
proposed location include: W. F. Nettles & Son, Murphy's Lunchette, Dubose Pool Hall, two
barber shops, a bus station, a snack bar, a record shop, an antique shop, and a furniture store, a
flea market, a studio, and a photography store.
4. A Camden Police Substation is located across the street from the proposed
location.
5. No church, school, or playground is within close proximity to the proposed
location.
6. Alma Alexander held an on-premises beer and wine permit at the proposed
location d/b/a AAA Pool Hall, for approximately five (5) years with one violation in February of
1993.
7. The proposed location is leased to the applicant by Francis Sheheen.
8. The proposed location has a parking lot located at the back of the building.
9. The proposed location has an occupancy capacity of approximately forty (40)
persons.
10. The applicant has never held a beer and wine permit or other license for the sale or
consumption of alcoholic beverages.
11. The applicant intends to operate the proposed location as a pool room.
12. Chief Jack B. Cobb of the Camden Police Department along with Hope Cooper,
the Advising Project Manager for the Downtown Revitalization, testified in opposition to the
application. As justification for denial of the beer and wine permit, they cited (1) revitalization of
the area and potential growth of new businesses; (2) loitering in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed location; (3) drug activities in the area of the proposed location; (4) public safety
concerns; and (5) oversaturation of beer and wine permits in the area surrounding the proposed
location.
13. The Camden Police Department has made approximately four (4) arrests within the
past year in the area in which the proposed location is situated. The proposed location was
condemned for a portion of this time period.
14. The area in which the proposed location is situated has experienced incidents of
drug activity and random shootings.
15. Loitering has occurred at the proposed location and in the vicinity of the proposed
location.
16. No evidence was offered to establish any criminal activity occurring at the
proposed location.
17. The applicant is of good moral character.
18. The applicant will operate and manage the pool room.
19. The applicant is at least 21 years of age, a U.S. citizen, a citizen of the State of
South Carolina, and has maintained his 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.
20. Notice of the application appeared in The Chronicle-Independent, 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. When evidence establishes that the sale of beer and wine is likely to be detrimental
to the public interest because of the unavailability of adequate law enforcement, there exists a
sufficient basis for the denial of the permit. Moore v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 308 S.C.
167, 417 S.E.2d 557 (1991). However, in the instant case, a Camden Police Substation is located
across the street from the proposed location with adequate personnel to provide law enforcement
protection.
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). No concrete evidence was presented to show that the issuance of an on-premises
beer and wine permit to the applicant would have an adverse impact on the community.
Additionally, sufficient evidence was not offered to establish that the applicant's business
contributed to any of the criminal activity in the area.
8. The denial of a license or permit to an applicant on the grounds of unsuitability of
location is without evidentiary support when relevant testimony of those opposing the requested
license or permit consists entirely of opinions, generalities, and conclusions not supported by
facts. Taylor v. Lewis, 261 S.C. 168, 198 S.E.2d 801 (1973); Smith v. Pratt, 258 S.C. 504, 189
S.E.2d 301 (1972).
9. The proposed location and business activity are suitable and proper because of the
commercial nature of the surrounding area.
10. The applicant satisfies all statutory requirements for holding an on-premises beer
and wine permit and with the restriction set forth below, the proposed location is proper for the
issuance of an on-premises beer and wine permit.
11. 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).
12. 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.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the application of Rickey J. Jackson for an on-premises beer and wine
permit for a location at 921 Broad Street, Camden, South Carolina, be granted upon the applicant
signing a written agreement to be filed with DOR to adhere to the following restriction:
1. The applicant shall strictly prohibit patrons at the proposed location from loitering
in the front or rear of his business or in the rear parking lot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a violation of the above restriction 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 restriction.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
Edgar A. Brown Building
1205 Pendleton Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
May 10, 1995 |
