ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1994) and
§§ 1-23-310, et seq. (1986 & Supp. 1994) upon application for an on-premises beer and wine
permit for 1529 Gregg Street, Orangeburg, South Carolina, filed by Tina L. Jackson with the
South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation (hereinafter referred to as "DOR"). A
hearing was held in Orangeburg at the Orangeburg County Courthouse on August 23, 1995. The
issues considered were: (1) the suitability of the proposed location; (2) the suitability of the
proposed business activity; and (3) the eligibility of the applicant. The permit is hereby denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT
By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:
(1) The applicant filed with DOR an on-premises beer and wine permit application for a
location at 1529 Gregg Street, Orangeburg, South Carolina, AI #103026.
(2) Notice of the time, date, place, and subject matter of the hearing was given to the
applicant, protestant, and DOR.
(3) The proposed location is located in unincorporated Orangeburg County, within the
jurisdiction of the Orangeburg County Sheriff's Department, just outside of the city limits of the
City of Orangeburg.
(4) The proposed location is located on Gregg Street, between Quick Street and the dead
end of Gregg Street.
(5) The proposed location is currently licensed to sell beer and wine for on-premises
consumption in the name of Dawn Bess, d/b/a D&D Sports Bar & Grill, permit #BW 526303, and
has been licensed since August, 1993, although the proposed location is not currently open for
business.
(6) No evidence was presented to indicate that the current permit was issued pursuant to
a contested case hearing in which the present issues were previously litigated and decided.
(7) The Gregg Street area is a high crime area which requires constant law enforcement
attention, including response to calls and arrests for shootings and drug sales and use.
(8) "Kick Booty", an establishment which holds an off-premises beer and wine permit, is
located at the corner of Gregg and Dorchester Streets, approximately 1,050 feet from the
proposed location.
(9) Adjacent to Kick Booty is a retail liquor store.
(10) Another location, located approximately 150' away on Gregg Street (next door to
the proposed location), is licensed to sell beer and wine for on-premises consumption, although it
is not presently in operation.
(11) Applicant's husband, Johnny Jackson, was arrested in the Gregg Street area on
November 16, 1990, and convicted of distribution of cocaine. He was sentenced to five years in
prison and five years probation. He is currently on probation.
(12) Applicant and her husband reside at 1461 Gregg Street, approximately 500 feet from
the proposed location.
(13) Johnny Jackson is the owner of the proposed location, with the premises being
leased to Applicant.
(14) Johnny Jackson managed the proposed location in or about 1989.
(15) Applicant stipulates that her husband will have no involvement with the management
or operation of the lounge and will not be allowed entry to the business premises, except in his
capacity as landlord. Applicant proposed to make such stipulations as conditions and restrictions
to any permit issued.
(16) Enforcement of a permit condition restricting Johnny Jackson's involvement with the
operation of the lounge would be difficult, given the proximity of his residence to the proposed
location and his role as landlord.
(17) The availability of beer and wine for consumption in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed location is 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 citizen of the State of South
Carolina, and has maintained her principal residence in South Carolina for more than thirty days.
(19) The applicant has not had a permit/license revoked in the last two years.
(20) The applicant is of good moral character.
(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) S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1994) provides that the South Carolina
Administrative Law Judge Division is empowered 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) provides the criteria to be met by an
applicant for a beer and wine permit in South Carolina.
(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 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).
(5) Applicant meets the statutory requirements for issuance of a beer and wine permit,
except as to suitability of the proposed location..
(6) The proposed location is unsuitable for the on-premises sale and consumption of beer
and wine because of its proximity to Johnny Jackson's residence, in light of Johnny Jackson's
ownership of the proposed location and Johnny Jackson's conviction for cocaine distribution in
the proposed location's immediate vicinity.
(7) The proposed location is unsuitable for the sale of beer and wine because of the
tendency of the location to attract drug users and dealers.
(8) The proposed business activity is not proper for the proposed location considering the
impact of the sale and consumption of beer upon criminal activity and law enforcement problems
in the area. Palmer v. S.C. ABC Commission, 282 S.C. 246, 317 S.E.2d 476 (Ct.App. 1984);
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that DOR deny the on-premises beer and wine permit
applied for.
_______________________________
STEPHEN P. BATES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
August 31, 1995
Columbia, South Carolina |
