ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
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.
FINDINGS OF FACT
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.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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.
ORDER
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.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
October 7, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina |
