ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division on the application of James
Leon Williams, J L W & Associates, d/b/a Goff Ave. Convenience Store, for an off-premises beer
and wine permit for a business located at 1697 Goff Avenue, Orangeburg, South Carolina. After
notice to the parties, a hearing was conducted on February 26, 1998. The South Carolina
Department of Revenue ("DOR") file was incorporated as a part of the record at the hearing. Based
upon the evidence presented, the application for the beer and wine permit is DENIED.
FINDINGS OF FACT
By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:
The Petitioner, James Leon Williams, applied for an off-premises beer and wine permit for
the premises located at 1697 Goff Avenue, Orangeburg, South Carolina, known as the Goff Avenue
Convenience Store.
The Petitioner had previously applied for a permit; however, Judge Alison R. Lee of this
Division found that the location was unsuitable for a beer and wine permit. Williams v. South
Carolina Dep't of Revenue, 94-ALJ-17-0318-CC (January 6, 1995). That Order was appealed to
the Circuit Court on August 23, 1995 and to the Supreme Court on May 22, 1996 (withdrawn on
July 17, 1996).
On January 9, 1997, Mr. Williams filed an application for an off-premises beer and wine
permit at 1697 Goff Avenue, Orangeburg, South Carolina. Subsequently, Administrative Law
Judge Ray N. Stevens held that a material change had occurred that would authorize DOR to
process the new application. 97-ALJ-17-0539-CC (November 24, 1997).
The Orangeburg County Sheriff's Office and the New Brookland Improvement League
protested the current application on the basis that the location is unsuitable for the issuance of a
permit because the sale of beer and wine at the proposed location would be detrimental to the
community.
The Petitioner is over the age of twenty-one.
The Petitioner is a citizen and legal resident of the United States and has been a legal
resident of South Carolina for more than 30 days prior to the date of application.
The Petitioner has had no criminal convictions in the past 10 years and is a person of good
moral character.
Petitioner is personally a suitable and fit person to hold a beer and wine permit.
Petitioner owns the proposed location and will continue to manage it personally, as he has
done for four years.
The proposed location is a convenience store and restaurant, open Monday through Saturday
from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., April through September; from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., October through
March; and closed on Sunday.
The proposed location has not been cited with any violation of the criminal laws under the
Petitioner's management.
The Goff Avenue Convenience Store is located at the corner of Stilton and Goff Streets,
in an area known as "New Brookland" or the "Hill."
Goff Avenue is a two-lane city street, and the proposed location is not immediately near any
major highways.
The area surrounding the proposed location is primarily residential in nature, with some
commercial properties.
Most of the area's residents are elderly persons and children who have continued to feel
threatened by the presence of drugs and crime in their neighborhood.
The Green Grocery and the Green Package Store have a beer and wine permit and retail
liquor license, respectively, and are located less than 100 feet from the proposed location.
The Greater St. Paul Nondenominational Church is 280 feet from the proposed location.
The New Hope Church, the Mt. Sinai Church, the Unity Baptist Church and the Gethsemane
Church are each located approximately 1,000 feet or less from the proposed location.
A residence is located 54 feet from the proposed location, and numerous other residences
are located in close proximity to the proposed location.
Nix Elementary School is located two blocks, or 1,848 feet from the proposed location.
Many school children living in the neighborhood walk through or past the parking lot of the
proposed location going to and from school each day.
The street corner where the proposed location is located has been a site plagued for several
years by loitering, heavy traffic, and noise.
The street corner where the proposed location is located and the neighborhood surrounding
the proposed location have a history of criminal activity involving prostitution, illegal drug trade,
and violent crimes such as homicide.
The Orangeburg County Sheriff's Department and the Governor's Drug Task Force have
concentrated efforts in the Hill area to combat drug sales and other criminal activity over the past
eight years.
As a result of the intense efforts of state and local law enforcement agencies, the amount of
drug activity and crime in the Hill area has diminished.
Although the area has significantly improved in recent years and crime has diminished,
crime still presents a problem for law enforcement and residents of the area.
Performing periodic sweeps, law enforcement personnel continue to patrol the Hill area.
From 1995 until November, 1997, the Orangeburg County Sheriff;'s Department received
and responded to 2,496 calls from the Hill area.
From November, 1997, through February, 1998, the Orangeburg County Sheriff's
Department received and responded to 233 calls from the Hill area.
A public pay telephone is located in the parking lot of the proposed location.
The parking lot, pay phone, and street corner in front of the proposed location are and have
been a gathering place and point of contact for drug pushers and buyers.
The Orangeburg County Sheriff's Department fears that if the proposed location is granted
a beer and wine permit, the proposed location will again become a gathering place and point of
contact for drug pushers and buyers, despite Petitioner's good reputation and intentions.
Notice of application appeared in The Times and Democrat on December 13, 20, and 27,
1996. Notice was also posted at the proposed location for the time period required.
The issuance of a beer and wine permit to Petitioner would have a detrimental impact upon
the surrounding area, notwithstanding Petitioner's intention to operate a reputable establishment.
Because of the past history of the proposed location, the drug-related activity in the
surrounding area, and the likelihood that the proposed location would provide a gathering place for
drug pushers and buyers if the establishment were granted a beer and wine permit, the residential
nature of the area, the existence of large numbers of elderly and young persons in the neighborhood,
and the proximity of a school and churches, the proposed location is unsuitable for issuance of an
off-premises beer and wine permit.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law, the following:
The Administrative Law Judge Division holds subject-matter jurisdiction over contested
cases concerning the issuance of beer and wine permits. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 1997).
See also South Carolina Administrative Procedures Act, §§ 1-23-310 et seq. (1986 & Supp. 1997)
and South Carolina Revenue Procedures Act §§ 12-60-10 et seq. (Supp. 1997).
S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 (Supp. 1997), which sets forth the requirements for the issuance
of a beer and wine permit, provides as follows:
No permit authorizing the sale of beer or wine may be issued unless. . . .
(6) The location of the proposed place of business of the applicant is in the opinion of the
department a proper one.
(7) The department may consider, among other factors, as indications of unsuitable location,
the proximity to residences, schools, playgrounds and churches.
The factual determination of whether or not an application is granted or denied is usually
the sole prerogative of the executive agency charged with rendering that decision. Palmer v. South
Carolina ABC Comm'n, 282 S.C. 246, 317 S.E.2d 476 (Ct. App. 1984).
As trier of fact, the Administrative Law Judge may decide the suitability of the proposed
business location for a permit to sell beer and wine using broad, but not unbridled, discretion. Byers
v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 281 S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984). Although "proper
location" is not statutorily defined, broad discretion has been vested in the finder of fact in
determining the fitness or suitability of a particular location. See Fast Stops, Inc. v. Ingram, 276
S.C. 593, 281 S.E.2d 118 (1981); 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).
The determination of suitability of the proposed location is not necessarily a function solely
of geography. It may involve 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).
Constant problems that require police attention and create an adverse impact upon the
neighboring residential neighborhood serve as grounds to deny a beer and wine permit. Palmer v.
South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 282 S.C. 246, 317 S.E.2d 476 (Ct. App. 1984).
The applicant meets the statutory requirements for the issuance of an off-premises beer and
wine permit.
The issuance of an off-premises beer and wine permit would have an adverse impact on the
community.
The proposed location is unsuitable for issuance of the permit sought because of the past
history of the proposed location, the drug-related activity in the surrounding area, and the likelihood
that the proposed location would provide a gathering place for drug pushers and buyers if the
establishment were reopened with a beer and wine permit. Accordingly, the application does not
meet all the requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 and must be denied.
Any issues raised or presented in the proceedings or hearing of this case not specifically
addressed in this Order are deemed denied. ALJD Rule 29(B).
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petitioner's application for an off-premises beer
and wine permit is denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
STEPHEN P. BATES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
March 23, 1998
Columbia, South Carolina |