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 Otis
White. The applicant seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit (AI 103436) for a social club
located at Route 1, Box 1322 outside the city of Great Falls, Fairfield County, 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. Several protestants of record
appeared. No protestant moved 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 denied.
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 Route 1, Box 1322.
2. Petitioner's application to the South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation
("Department") was made a part of the record without objection.
3. The proposed location is situated in the midst of the Peay Ridge community which
is a rural residential area.
4. No church, school, or playground is within close proximity to the proposed
location.
5. The proposed location was previously licensed in the applicant's name from 1984-1985 without being cited for any violations. Since this time, the business has operated under
other managements, but is currently not in operation.
6. The applicant, Otis White, owns the proposed location.
7. The applicant has not had a beer and wine permit or other license for the sale or
consumption of alcoholic beverages revoked within two (2) years prior to the date of making
application.
9. Although the proposed location is not currently operating, individuals congregate
and loiter in the parking lot and in the area immediately surrounding the proposed location. There
is a problem with drug activity, loud music, profane language, and random shootings virtually on
a weekly basis at the proposed location and in the community. When the proposed location was
previously licensed, there were problems with litter and traffic congestion as a result of the
operation of the business.
10. The Fairfield County Sheriff's Department is located in Winnsboro, approximately
twenty (20) miles from the proposed location and the response time to incident calls is very slow.
Incident calls have often not been answered by the Sheriff's Department until the next day.
11. The protestants live within close proximity to the proposed location. The
residences of the protestants closest to the proposed location are approximately forty (40) feet to
one hundred and fifty (150) feet from the proposed location.
12. The applicant is of good moral character.
13. The applicant will operate and manage the social club.
14. 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.
15. 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. "The proximity of a location to a church, school or residence is a proper ground by
itself, on which the [trier of fact] may find the location to be unsuitable and deny a permit for the
sale of beer or wine at that location." Byers v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 305 S.C. 243, 407
S.E.2d 653 (1991); Moore v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 308 S.C. 167, 417 S.E.2d 555
(1992). The proposed location is unsuitable because of its proximity to residences.
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).
8. "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). The proposed location, if licensed, would adversely affect the public interest. The
record is clear that this community already has a problem with criminal activity; that litter and
traffic congestion result from the operation of the proposed location; and that adequate law
enforcement is unavailable. Thus, it is equally clear that this establishment would not be
conducive to the general welfare of the community.
9. The proposed location is unsuitable because granting the beer and wine permit
would worsen the situation in an already crime ridden community. See Fowler v. Lewis, 260 S.C.
54, 194 S.E.2d 191 (1973).
10. 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. See Palmer v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 282 S.C.
246, 317 S.E.2d 476 (Ct. App. 1984). The proposed location is located in a rural, residential area
and the sheriff's department is approximately twenty (20) miles away and the response time to
incident calls is very slow; this would indicate that necessary law enforcement is not immediately
available. Therefore, the proposed location is unsuitable because of the unavailability of adequate
law enforcement.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the application of Otis White for an on-premises beer and wine permit
for a location at Route 1, Box 1322 outside the city of Great Falls, Fairfield County, South
Carolina, is denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
Edgar A. Brown Building
1205 Pendleton Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
August 24, 1995 |
