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

Angela Doiley, d/b/a Angie's vs. SCDOR

South Carolina Department of Revenue

Angela Doiley, d/b/a Angie's

South Carolina Department of Revenue

Christian Men Breakfast Club and Citizens of North Santee, Herbert Dennison, and Sammy Grayson

James E. Doiley, partner of "Angie's," pro se

Arlene D. Hand, Attorney for Respondent

Jack M. Scoville, Jr., Attorney for Protestant-Intervenors



This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 (Supp. 1998) and 23 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 7-90 (1976) following the Petitioner's request for a contested case hearing. The Petitioner, Angela Doiley, d/b/a Angie's, seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit. After the Protestants filed written protests with the South Carolina Department of Revenue ("DOR"), and upon the Petitioner's request, this matter was transmitted by the DOR to the Administrative Law Judge Division ("ALJD") for a hearing. A hearing was held on October 5, 1999 at the ALJD in Columbia, South Carolina.


Having carefully considered the testimony and the arguments, and taking into account the credibility of the evidence, I find by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. The Petitioner, Angela Doiley, d/b/a Angie's, seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit for an establishment located at 10106 Powell Road, Hwy. 24, Georgetown, South Carolina, in Georgetown County. Angie's is a partnership between Angela Doiley and her father James E. Doiley. Although Ms. Doiley was unable to attend the hearing, Mr. Doiley, a general partner, was present.

2. Prior to the hearing, the DOR moved to be excused from participation in the hearing. In that motion, the DOR indicated that it does not oppose the Petitioner's application and would have granted the permit but for the protests. DOR's motion was denied.

3. The Protestants filed a Motion to Intervene with the Court, which was granted on September 20, 1999.

4. The parties and the Protestants received notice of the time, date, place, and subject matter of this hearing.

5. While none of the Intervenors challenge the Petitioner's suitability to hold the beer and wine permit, they do challenge the suitability of the location.

6. The Petitioner characterizes the business as a bar and game room with recorded music and outside activities. The Petitioner proposes to open the business from Noon until 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; and from Noon until midnight on Saturday. The business will be closed on Sunday.

7. The surrounding area is primarily residential, including one residence which is located only 140 feet from the proposed location.

8. The Intervenors' witnesses live close to the proposed location. They are concerned about a variety of problems already occurring at the proposed location. If a beer and wine permit is issued, they fear an increase in those problems.

9. Although the proposed location is not yet licensed, Herbert Dennison has already noticed an increase in litter, loitering, and noise. Furthermore, he observed some individuals "brown bagging" and playing with dice at the proposed location.

10. Bernice Washington lives next door to the proposed location. She has already called the sheriff's department two times about the noise level.

11. While Mr. Doiley acknowledged some problems, he attributed them to people in the parking lot playing car stereos after closing time.

12. Numerous other residents attended the hearing. They did not testify, however, noting that the testimony would be cumulative to that of Mr. Dennison and Ms. Washington.

13. There are children in the area, including Ms. Washington's six-year-old granddaughter. There is a school bus stop approximately 570 feet from the proposed location and an elementary school approximately .7 miles from the proposed location. Several children must walk past the proposed location to get home from the bus stop, and based on the Petitioner's proposed hours, the children would have to do so during business hours.

14. The proposed location is not currently licensed, although Judith Doiley held an off-premises beer and wine permit from approximately December 1985 until July 1996. Judith Doiley is Mr. Doiley's wife. During this period, at least two warnings were issued to a Judith Doiley for permitting a criminal act on the premises.


Based on these Findings of Fact, I conclude:

1. The ALJD has subject matter jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Chapter 23 of Title 1 of the 1976 Code, as amended.

2. Under S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 (Supp. 1998), no beer and wine permit may be granted unless the location of the place of business is suitable. Although proper location is not statutorily defined, broad discretion is vested in the ALJD to determine the suitability of a particular location. See Fast Stops, Inc. v. Ingram, 276 S.C. 593, 281 S.E.2d 118 (1981); Byers v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 281 S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984).

3. The determination of suitability "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, 326-27, 338 S.E.2d 335, 337 (1985) (citations omitted). The determination is not solely a function of geography.

4. In general, consideration may be given to any factor demonstrating the adverse effect the proposed location will have on the community, Palmer v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 282 S.C. 246, 317 S.E.2d 476 (Ct. App. 1984), including the location's proximity to a church, school, or residence. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520(7) (Supp. 1998). See also Byers v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 305 S.C. 243, 407 S.E.2d 653 (1991) (the proximity to a church, school, or residence, by itself, may support of finding of unsuitability) (discussing the predecessor statute).

5. I have considered all of the factors relevant to the proposed location and have given due weight to the evidence presented at the hearing. The proposed location is situated in a primarily residential area. The business is a bar and game room. Furthermore, the Petitioner plans to open in the afternoon which will coincide with children walking home from the school bus stop. The nature of this business is incompatible with this neighborhood setting. I, therefore, conclude that the location is unsuitable. Accordingly, the Petitioner's application for an on-premises beer and wine permit must be denied.


THEREFORE, the DOR shall deny the Petitioner's application for an on-premises beer and wine permit for the establishment at 10106 Powell Road, Hwy. 24, Georgetown, South Carolina.





October 7, 1999

Columbia, South Carolina

Brown Bldg.






Copyright © 2022 South Carolina Administrative Law Court