ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("ALJD") pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310, et seq.
(1986 & Supp. 1998); S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-525 (Supp. 1998); and 23 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 7-90 (Supp. 1998) following
the Petitioner's request for a contested case hearing. The Petitioner, Gloria Edmonds, d/b/a Dominques Sports Bar, applied
for an on-premises beer and wine permit. Upon Protestants' filing of written protests with the South Carolina Department of
Revenue ("DOR"), and upon Petitioner's request, this matter was transmitted by DOR to the ALJD for a hearing.
The hearing commenced on November 8, 1999, and was reconvened on November 29, 1999, at 10:00 a.m. in Columbia,
South Carolina.
Subsequent to the hearing of November 8, 1999, and prior to reconvening the hearing on November 29, 1999, the
Petitioner terminated Mr. Harrison's representation of her in this matter. Mr. Harrison's motion requesting to be released as
counsel of record for the Petitioner, Gloria Edmonds, based on her termination of his representation was granted on
November 24, 1999.
Subsequent to the termination of Mr. Harrison's representation of Petitioner, and prior to the hearing of November 29, 1999,
Petitioner, Gloria Edmonds did not communicate with the Administrative Law Judge Division by any means. Petitioner
made no contact with the ALJD to have the hearing scheduled for November 29, 1999, rescheduled so that she could retain
other counsel.
The hearing reconvened at 10:00 a.m. on November 29, 1999; however, as of 10:15 a.m., neither the Petitioner nor anyone
on Petitioner's behalf appeared at the hearing. Arlene D. Hand, Attorney for DOR, moved for an order finding the location
unsuitable for an on-premises beer and wine permit. Respondent's motion is granted.
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, Gloria Edmonds, d/b/a Dominques Sports Bar, applied for an on-premises beer and wine
permit for an establishment located at 4431-D Bluff Road, Columbia, South Carolina, in Richland County.
2. Prior to the hearing, DOR moved to be excused from participation in the hearing. In its motion, 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 parties and the Protestants were either present or represented at the hearing held on November 8, 1999, and
received notice of the time, date, place, and subject matter of the November 29, 1999, hearing.
4. Although the Petitioner had notice of the time, place and subject matter of the hearing which reconvened on November
29, 1999, neither the Petitioner nor anyone on Petitioner's behalf appeared at the hearing. Prior to the November 29, 1999
hearing, no contact was made by the Petitioner with the Administrative Law Judge Division to request a continuance of the
hearing or for any other purpose.
5. The Petitioner did not present any direct evidence on her behalf.
6. Ruth Johnson, a resident of Bluff Estates for 25 years and President of the East Bluff Community Organization, explained
that the community strives to improve its environment and its community image and that having such a licensed premises
would hinder that effort.
7. Roger Leaks, Jr., the Executive Committeeman of the Eastway Park Community Association, opposes the application
because of its location and its history. The proposed location is situated centrally between three residential subdivisions.
The granting of the permit would upset the integrity of the community. The location is surrounded by an aging, middle-class
neighborhood. 8. The nearest home is just 50 feet from the proposed location. The residents of Eastway Park, Bluff
Estates, and Starlite subdivisions fear noise problems, increased traffic, and strangers coming into the neighborhood. When
the proposed location was previously licensed, there was an increase in criminal activity.
9. Vernetta B. Tillman, a resident of Eastway Park for 27 years, fears drug trafficking, excessive loitering, breaking and
entering of nearby homes and cars, and vandalism.
10. Andrew A. Milling, who lives directly across the street and within 50 to 75 feet from the proposed location is concerned
about an increase in traffic, loitering, and loud music from both the business as well as patrons in the parking lot. He fears
for the area children who often walk up and down the street to visit friends in neighboring subdivisions.
11. Jacob McKie is concerned about an increase in theft and traffic.
12. Based on the testimony of Judy G. Spell, a resident of Starlight Subdivision for over 20 years, there are children in the
area who are in kindergarten through high school. School buses pass within 50 feet of the proposed location
CONCLUSIONS OF LAWBased 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. Although some of the surrounding area is commercial, much of it is residential. Based on
the testimony of nearby residents, this location has been a source of serious problems in the past. Since this location was last
licensed, several community associations have strived to improve the neighborhood, and re-licensing this location may thwart
their efforts. The nature of this business is incompatible with this setting and the proposed location is within an improper
proximity to residences. I, therefore, grant DOR's motion and find that the location is unsuitable. Accordingly, the
Petitioner's application for an on-premises beer and wine permit must be denied.
ORDER
THEREFORE, Petitioner's application for an on-premises beer and wine permit for the establishment located at 4431-D
Bluff Road, Columbia, South Carolina, is hereby denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
December 1, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina |
