South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Georgia A. Missouri, d/b/a Race Track Grocery vs. SCDOR

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Georgia A. Missouri, d/b/a Race Track Grocery

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Revenue
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
94-ALJ-17-0420-CC

APPEARANCES:
James H. Harrison, Attorney for Petitioner/Applicant

Chief Jack Cobb, Spokesperson for Protestants
 

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 808 Chesnut Street, Camden, South Carolina, by

Georgia A. Missouri filed with the South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation (hereinafter referred to as "DOR"). A hearing was held on February 27, 1995. At the hearing Petitioner moved to amend her beer and wine permit application from one for on-premises consumption to one for off-premises consumption. There being no objection, the application was amended accordingly. 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 application is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:

(1) Applicant seeks an off-premises beer and wine permit for a location at 808 Chesnut Street, Camden, South Carolina, having filed an application with DOR, AI #100607.

(2) Notice of the time, date, place, and subject matter of the hearing was given to the applicant, protestants, and DOR.

(3) Testifying in opposition to the application were: Chief Jack Cobb, Camden Police Department; William D. Chivers, a resident of the Boykin Park area residing approximately 425 feet from the proposed location; Henry Stradford, a resident of the Boykin Park area residing approximately thirty to fifty feet from the proposed location; and Lt. Henrietta Gray of the Juvenile Division of the Camden Police Department.

(4) The proposed location is located in the City of Camden in a predominately residential area across the street from Boykin Park.

(5) The proposed location is currently operating as a small neighborhood grocery.

(6) The proposed location has been previously licensed to sell beer and wine under former operators for an approximately twenty-year period ending in 1992 or 1993.

(7) Applicant began operation of the proposed location on or about September 1994.

(8) The proposed location is owned by Petitioner's brother, who is currently imprisoned after being convicted for various drug offenses.

(9) Boykin Park is an open park with a playground, basketball court, and scattered shrubbery. It has a long and continuing history of problems involving loitering, vagrancy, public drunkenness, littering, assaults, drug sales and use, public urination, and other criminal activity that have prevented the peaceful and safe enjoyment of the park by local residents.

(10) During the time the proposed location was previously licensed, the Camden Police Department responded to numerous calls and made many arrests in the park area for a variety of crimes, including discharge of firearms, assault and battery, and drug possession.

(11) A majority of the arrests in the area involved Applicant's family members.

(12) In May 1993, crime problems became so serious that the Camden Police Department made a raid in the Boykin Park area. Nineteen persons were arrested on twenty-five charges involving the possession, use, and distribution of crack cocaine.

(13) The proposed location's previous beer and wine permit was revoked soon after the May 1993 raid.

(14) After the May 1993 police raid in the park, the neighborhood and city have cleaned up the park and children have begun to play in the park again.

(15) Approximately 200 children live in the Boykin Park area.

(16) Residents of the area fear for the safety of themselves and their children from persons under the influence of alcohol and/or other drugs.

(17) The availability of beer and wine for consumption in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location was one of the contributing causes of the public safety problems in the area.

(18) The applicant is over twenty-one years of age, is a resident of the State of South Carolina, and has maintained her principal residence in South Carolina for more than one year.

(19) The applicant has not had a permit revoked in the last two years.

(20) Applicant is of suitable character and temperament to hold a beer and wine permit.

(21) 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) 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 (Ct.App. 1984).

(4) The proposed location is unsuitable for the sale of beer and wine because of the tendency of the location to attract vagrants, drug users, and drug dealers.

(5) The proposed business activity is not proper for the proposed location considering the impact of the sale and consumption of beer upon criminal activity in the area and past law enforcement problems. Palmer v. S.C. ABC Commission, 282 S.C. 246, 317 S.E.2d 476 (Ct.App. 1984);

(6) The proposed location is unsuitable for the sale of beer and wine because of the residential nature of the community, and the proximity of residences and the playground at Boykin Park. Proximity of a proposed location to residences or a playground is grounds, standing alone, to deny the application. William G. Byers v. S.C. ABC Commission, ___ S.C ___ , 407 S.E.2d 653 (1991).

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that DOR deny the off-premises beer and wine permit applied for.

_______________________________________

STEPHEN P. BATES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

March 15, 1995

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court