The Issue The issue in this case is whether certain statements by officials of Respondent Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (ABT), constitute an unpromulgated rule that is invalid pursuant to Subsection 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner TWM is a licensed retail vendor of alcoholic beverages. It operates nine stores in Florida that sell alcoholic beverages, including distilled spirits, by the package. Respondent ABT is the state agency authorized by Section 561.02, Florida Statutes, to regulate the alcoholic beverage industry, including manufacturers, distributors and vendors of alcoholic beverages within the State of Florida. Intervenor ABC is a licensed retail vendor of alcoholic beverages, holding in excess of 100 licenses authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverages, including distilled spirits, by the package. The Alleged Unpromulgated Rule Florida has a three-tiered system of alcoholic beverage distribution. Manufacturers produce the product and sell to distributors, distributors sell the product at wholesale to licensed vendors, and vendors sell the product to the general public at retail. §§ 561.14(1)-(3), Fla. Stat. The term "in-store servicing" refers generally to activities by distributors or manufacturers on the vendor's premises, such as placing stock on shelves, rotating stock, and affixing prices. On April 4, 2007, Renee Alsobrook emailed a message to John Harris, a governmental consultant, which included the following statement: In researching the coupon rule, I reviewed prior opinions I had provided and determined that this opinion provided to you in March, 2006, was wrong. I WAS WRONG. Section 561.424, F.S., clearly excludes in-store servicing of distilled spirits. Please communicate the position of ABT to your wholesalers and Trone. On April 24, 2007, Stephen Hougland emailed the following message to Mr. Harris: John, after considerable research and consultation, ABT's opinion is that FL law does not permit in-store servicing for spirits. I'd be glad to talk to you about the decision as I am sure you are concerned about the impact on your clients. These two email messages were cited by TWM in its Petition as expressions of a new policy that has not been adopted as a rule and is, therefore, invalid and unenforceable. In the course of discovery, other written statements by ABT employees were found that were also made in April 2007, which TWM contends are expressions of the new policy. In a letter dated April 9, 2007, from Lisa Comingore, assistant general counsel for DBPR, to Charles Bailes of ABC, Ms. Comingore states: Wholesalers and manufacturers of distilled spirits are not authorized to provide in- store servicing by section 561.424, Florida Statutes and would be providing aid to retailers in the form of providing labor for the retailer. Such aid to the retailer could constitute a violation of section 561.42, Florida Statutes. In a letter dated April 30, 2007, from Director Hougland to Mr. and Mrs. John Schaeffer of Great Spirits Liquor & Fine Wine, Director Hougland states: Florida law allows in-store servicing of beer and malt beverages as well as vinous beverages, however, in-store servicing of distilled spirits is not authorized . . . Section 561.424(2), Florida Statutes, specifically excludes in-store servicing of distilled spirits. Wholesalers and manufacturers of distilled spirits are not authorized to provide in- store servicing by section 561.424, Florida Statutes and would be providing aid to retailers in the form of providing labor for the retailer. Such aid to the retailer could constitute a violation of section 561.42, Florida Statutes. The Governing Statutes The federal government and many states, including Florida, enacted "Tied House Evil" laws to prevent the "evils" that arose from relationships between vendors of alcoholic beverages and manufacturers and distributors which caused the vendors to be controlled by or "tied" to the distributors and manufacturers. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., v. Schenck Co., 662 So. 2d 1021, 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Musleh v. Fulton Distributing Co. of Florida, 254 So. 2d 815, 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Florida's Tied House Evil law, set forth in Subsection 561.42(1), Florida Statutes, provides: No licensed manufacturer or distributor of any of the beverages herein referred to shall have any financial interest, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or business of any vendor licensed under the beverage laws; nor shall such licensed manufacturer or distributor assist any vendor by any gifts or loans of money or property of any description or by the giving of any rebates of any kind whatsoever. No licensed vendor shall accept, directly or indirectly, any gift or loan of money or property of any description or any rebates from any such licensed manufacturer or distributor; provided, however, that this does not apply to any bottles, barrels, or other containers necessary for the legitimate transportation of such beverages or to advertising materials and does not apply to the extension of credit, for liquors sold, made strictly in compliance with the provisions of this section. ABT contends that Subsection 561.42(1), Florida Statutes, prohibits in-store servicing of alcoholic beverages by distributors or manufacturers because it constitutes a gift of "free labor" to the vendor. TWM does not dispute ABT's interpretation of Subsection 561.42(1), Florida Statutes, as prohibiting in-store servicing as a form of gift, but TWM contends that subsequent legislation resulted in the removal of the prohibition. In 1975, Section 561.423, Florida Statutes, created an exception for in-store servicing of beer and malt beverages: Nothing in s. 561.42 or any other provision of the Beverage Law shall prohibit a distributor of beer or malt beverages from providing in-store servicing of malt beverages. "In-store servicing" as used herein means quality control procedures which include, but are not limited to: rotation of malt beverages on the vendor's shelves, rotation and placing of malt beverages in vendor's coolers, proper stacking and maintenance of appearance and display of malt beverages on vendor's shelves, price stamping of malt beverages on vendor's licensed premises, and moving or resetting any product or display in order to display a distributor's own product when authorized by the vendor. In 1977, Subsection 561.424(2), Florida Statutes, created an exception for in-store servicing of wine: Nothing in s. 561.42 or any other provision of the Alcoholic Beverage Law shall prohibit a distributor of wine from providing in- store servicing of wine sold by such distributor to a vendor. "In-store servicing" as used herein means: placing the wine on the vendor's shelves and maintaining the appearance and display of said wine on the vendor's shelves in the vendor's licensed premises; placing the wine not so shelved or displayed in a storage area designated by the vendor, which is located in the vendor's licensed premises; rotation of vinous beverages; and price stamping of vinous beverages in a vendor's licensed premises. This section shall not apply to distilled spirits. (Emphasis added) No similar statute was created to expressly authorize in-store servicing of distilled spirits by distributors. After the enactment of Section 561.423 and Subsection 561.424(2), Florida Statutes, there should have been little doubt that the Tied House Evil law was intended by the Legislature to prohibit in-store servicing of alcoholic beverages and that only by express exception was in-store servicing of beer and wine by distributors permitted.2/ The only evidence in the record that tends to explain why distilled spirits were treated differently from beer and wine with regard to in-store servicing is a statement made by Charles Bailes of ABC in a letter to Ms. Alsobrook that, "Historically, in-store servicing of perishable products such as wine and beer have been allowed so as to maximize freshness and minimize the chances of consumers purchasing spoiled merchandise." Mr. Bailes goes on to state that distilled spirits are not perishable. Florida Administrative Code Rule 7A-4.058 The main cause of the current confusion about in-store servicing of distilled spirits can be traced to a rule adopted by ABT in 1985. The year before, Subsection 561.42(12), Florida Statutes, was amended to add the following directive: The Division shall make reasonable rules governing promotional displays and advertising, which rules shall not conflict with or be more stringent than the federal regulations pertaining to such promotional displays and advertising furnished vendors by distributors and manufacturers. ABT responded by promulgating Florida Administrative Code Rule 7A-4.058, entitled "Promotional Displays and Advertising," effective January 2, 1985. The rule adopted certain federal regulations by reference: The Division adopts by reference the provisions of subpart D, Chapter 6, of Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, regulations 6.81 through 6.101 inclusive. It shall be a violation of Section 561.42, F.S., for any vendor to accept or for any manufacturer or distributor to give a retailer promotional displays, advertising or other such items, services or assistance governed by the regulations adopted by subsection (1) when given in a manner not in strict conformity with the adopted regulations. Subpart D was entitled "Exceptions" and established exceptions to the federal Tied House Evil law. It included exceptions clearly related to promotional displays and advertising, such as "Product Displays," "Inside Signs," "Retailer Advertising Specialties," "Consumer Advertising Specialties," and "Advertising Services." However, Subpart D also included exceptions on subjects that did not appear to involve promotional displays or advertising, such as "Educational Seminars" (for the employees of vendors), "Participation in Retailer Association Activities," "Joint Ventures," "Coil Cleaning Service," and "Stocking, Rotation and Pricing Services." Section 6.99 of the federal regulations, entitled "Stocking, Rotation and Pricing Services," provided: Industry members may, at a retail establishment, stock, rotate and affix the price to distilled spirits, wine, or malt beverages which they sell, provided products of other industry members are not altered or disturbed. The rearranging or resetting of all or part of a store or liquor department is not hereby authorized. Because stocking, rotation, and pricing services are synonymous with in-store servicing, ABT's adoption of Section 6.99 by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 7A-4.058 authorized in-store servicing of distilled spirits by distributors and manufacturers in Florida, in apparent conflict with the governing statutes. The adoption by reference of Section 6.99 also conflicted with Section 561.423 and Subsection 561.424(2), Florida Statutes, because these statutes only authorized in-store servicing of beer and wine by distributors, but the federal regulation authorized in-store servicing by "industry members," a term that includes manufacturers. Soon after the adoption of Florida Administrative Code Rule 7A-5.048, ABT's 1986 compliance guidelines included a statement that "27 CFR 6.99 and F.S.S. 561.424" authorize "manufacturers or distributors of distilled spirits or wine to stock, rotate and affix the price to their products at a licensed retailer's premises." ABT's 1988, 1993, and 1995 compliance guidelines contained the same statement.3/ Promotional Displays and Advertising The term "promotional displays and advertising" is not defined in Chapter 561, Florida Statutes, but insight into the Legislature's intended meaning for the term can be gleaned from the 1985 amendment of Subsection 561.42(12), Florida Statutes. Following the sentence that directs ABT to adopt rules regarding promotional displays and advertising, the 1985 amendment added "provided, however," followed by eight new paragraphs dealing with specific situations involving promotional displays and advertising: If a manufacturer or distributor of malt beverage provides a vendor with expendable retailer advertising specialties such as trays, coasters, mats, menu cards, napkins, cups, glasses, thermometers, and the like, such items shall be sold at a price not less than the actual cost to the industry member who initially purchased them, without limitation in total dollar value of such items sold to a vendor. Without limitation in total dollar value of such items provided to a vendor, a manufacturer or distributor of malt beverage may rent, loan without charge for an indefinite duration, or sell durable retailer advertising specialties such as clocks, pool table lights, and the like, which bear advertising matter. If a manufacturer or distributor of malt beverage provides a vendor with consumer advertising specialties such as ashtrays, T-shirts, bottle openers, shopping bags, and the like, such items shall be sold at a price not less than the actual cost to the industry member who initially purchased them, but may be sold without limitation in total value of such items sold to a vendor. A manufacturer or distributor of malt beverage may provide consumer advertising specialties described in paragraph (c) to consumers on any vendor’s licensed premises. Coupons redeemable by vendors shall not be furnished by distributors of beer to consumers. Manufacturers or distributors of beer shall not conduct any sampling activities that include tasting of their product at a vendor’s premises licensed for off-premises sales only. Manufacturers and distributors of beer shall not engage in cooperative advertising with vendors. Distributors of beer may sell to vendors draft equipment and tapping accessories at a price not less than the cost to the industry member who initially purchased them, except there is no required charge, and a distributor may exchange any parts which are not compatible with a competitor’s system and are necessary to dispense the distributor’s brands. A distributor of beer may furnish to a vendor at no charge replacement parts of nominal intrinsic value, including, but not limited to, washers, gaskets, tail pieces, hoses, hose connections, clamps, plungers, and tap markers. None of the examples in the statute suggest that in-store servicing of alcoholic beverages comes within the Legislature's intended meaning of promotional displays and advertising. The common meanings of the words "stocking," "rotation," and "pricing" do not match up with the common meanings of the words "promotional displays" and "advertising." As noted above, there were other federal exceptions adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 7A-4.058 that involved neither promotional displays nor advertising. ABT offered no explanation for the agency's indiscriminate adoption by reference of all the federal regulations in Subpart D, including those regulations that were not related to promotional displays and advertising. ABT now acknowledges that the 1985 rule was "non-compliant" with statutory law. TWM presented no evidence to show that stocking, rotation, and pricing are, as a matter of fact, forms of promotional displays or advertising. Instead, TWM argues that ABT's 1985 adoption by reference of Section 6.99 and ABT's subsequent representations that in-store servicing of distilled spirits was authorized in Florida, "determined" and "defined" in-store servicing as a promotional display or advertising. ABT changed its position sometime after 1995. In 1997, ABT repealed Florida Administrative Code Rule 7A-4.058 (which had been renumbered 61A-4.058). Although ABT replaced that rule with a new rule that regulated promotional displays and advertising, the new rule did not adopt any federal regulations by reference and the subject of stocking, rotation, and pricing services was abandoned, along with some of the other subjects covered by the federal regulations previously adopted by reference.4/ ABT's repeal of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-4.058 and its adoption of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-1.010 in 1977 was announced in public notices published in the Florida Administrative Weekly and through industry bulletins. Two public hearings were held on Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-1.010, which were attended by industry representatives. The rule prohibited any gift from distributors or manufacturers to vendors that was not specifically identified in the rule or specifically authorized by statute. In-store servicing of distilled spirits is not listed in the rule and, as discussed above, is not specifically authorized by statute. In 1998, ABT issued an industry bulletin to industry representatives on the specific subject of in-store servicing. The bulletin notes that there is no statutory exception for in-store servicing of distilled spirits as there is for beer and wine and states that "Unauthorized services to a vendor would be considered a gift of financial assistance, unless the vendor paid for the services provided to them [sic]." The 1998 bulletin concludes by stating that because of the "confusion about these in-store servicing provisions," no enforcement action would be taken against a vendor, distributor, or manufacturer for unauthorized services provided before the date of the bulletin. After the 1997 repeal of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-4.058, the main cause of confusion on the subject of in-store servicing of distilled spirits had been removed. However, the 1998 bulletin and any other efforts ABT made to inform and educate the regulated industry about its change of position were not completely successful. In-store servicing of distilled spirits by distributors continues to some extent today.5/ ABT does not dispute that the prohibition of in-store servicing of distilled spirits has general statewide application and that rulemaking on the subject is not infeasible or impractical. ABT's position is that the prohibition of in-store servicing of distilled spirits does not require a rule because the prohibition is established by statute.
The Issue The issue for resolution is whether Respondent committed the alleged violation, and, if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Frank Badalucco is Vice-president and Resident Agent of Fashions Corporation of America, Inc., the corporate owner of Hair Studio 2000. Mr. Badalucco also manages the studio, located in Orlando, Florida. The facility is licensed as a barbershop under license number BS- 0009172, issued on September 29, 1986. Fashions Corporation purchased the facility on or about September 15, 1986, from Kathy Wawrizniak. Shortly after the purchase, Frank Badalucco checked the employees to make certain they were properly licensed. Mabel Marin, one of the employees, told him that her purse had been stolen in December 1985, and that her license was lost. She had a number which she said was her current license number. Mr. Badalucco told her to take care of getting a duplicate. On August 6, 1987, Valerie Flowers, an inspector for the Department of Professional Regulation, inspected Hair Studio 2000. Mabel Marin was styling a patron's hair at a station in the shop. She did not have a license posted at her station, but had a paper with a license number on it. Ms. Marin told the inspector that it was her number and that her license was current. She also said that she had lost her license, but that she was given this number over the telephone. It is not the policy of the Department to give license numbers over the telephone. When Inspector Flowers checked the records, she found that the number Ms. Marin had posted was actually a number belonging to another licensee in Sunrise, Florida. Ms. Flowers verified that Mabel Marin had an inactive license. Ms. Marin insisted that she had renewed her license on time, but that it was not sent to her. She claimed to have a money order to prove this. Badalucco told Ms. Marin to get the money order and take it to Ms. Flowers office. Although she made several appointments by telephone, Mabel Marin never brought in her license or proof of application. At the hearing, Frank Badalucco produced a copy of Ms. Marin's money order in the amount of $70.00, made to the State Board of Cosmetology, and dated January 14, 1986. He also had a copy of Ms. Marin's license, showing an expiration date, June 30, 1988. He said that when they checked, they found that the money order had never been cashed. After the inspector filed her complaint, Ms. Marin sent another money order and received her license. It is apparent that Ms. Marin may have attempted to obtain a duplicate license after her purse was stolen. She never followed through, however, and the license was not renewed until after the violation was cited by Valerie Flowers. In the meantime, that license had expired and reverted to inactive status on July 1, 1986. The license was reactivated by payment of a regular renewal fee of $20.00 and reactivation fee of $50.00 on August 26, 1987.
Recommendation It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of the violations, as charged and be required to pay an administrative fine of $200.00. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Frank Badalucco Hair Studio 2000 955 West Lancaster Road Orlando, Florida 32809 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Barbers Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue The primary issue in this disciplinary proceeding is whether Respondent, which operates a restaurant where alcoholic beverages are served pursuant to a license issued by Petitioner, continued to sell alcohol after the service of full course meals had stopped, in violation of the statutes governing holders of beverage licenses. If Petitioner proves the alleged violation, then it will be necessary to consider whether penalties should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times, Respondent Barrett Enterprises, Inc. ("Barrett"), d/b/a Stuart Grill & Ale ("Stuart Grill"), has held a Special Restaurant License (an "SRX license"), which authorizes the licensee to sell alcoholic beverages secondary to the service of food and non-alcoholic beverages. Consequently, Barrett is subject to the regulatory and disciplinary jurisdiction of Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the "Division"). Barrett employs approximately 50 people to work at Stuart Grill, which is an establishment located in Martin County, Florida. Stuart Grill grosses nearly $2 million annually on food sales. In 2007, Barrett collected and remitted roughly $100,000 in sales tax on revenue from its food service operation. It sells 60,000 pounds, more or less, of chicken wings each year. In short, Stuart Grill is a bona fide restaurant.2 On two occasions——once on September 20, 2007, and again on October 19, 2007——four agents of the Division visited Stuart Grill late in the evening, around 11:00 p.m. They were conducting an investigation to determine whether "full course meals" (a term of art that will be discussed below) were available at all times when the restaurant was serving alcoholic beverages. (One of the conditions of holding an SRX license is that the licensee must make full course meals available while selling alcohol.) The two investigative visits followed the same pattern. Each time, the agents seated themselves at a booth in the main dining room, which was not crowded. The waitress (a different one each time) informed the agents that the kitchen was closed and, therefore, that they would need to order from the "Late Nite Menu," which was provided. The Late Nite Menu contained a limited number of items, namely: mozzarella sticks, beer battered "veggies" (mushrooms or onion rings), chicken strips, dolphin bites, conch fritters, fried critters (clam strips or grouper strips), fried calamari, smoked fish dip, and chicken wings. Each time, an agent tried to order a hamburger and was told that hamburgers were not available. Both times, the agents ordered (and were served) chicken wings, a couple of sodas, and beer.3 Neither visit lasted more than roughly half an hour. Dean Barrett, one of the restaurant's owners, testified credibly that the Late Nite Menu which was given to the agents was actually a bar menu; patrons in the main dining room should not have been instructed that they could order only from the Late Nite Menu, as apparently happened when the Division's agents went to Stuart Grill in September and October 2007. The undersigned accepts Mr. Barrett's testimony in this regard as truthful and finds that the waitresses (neither of whom was identified) who served the agents did not act in accordance with their employer's directives on those occasions. Regardless of that, however, the evidence fails to establish that "full course meals" were not available. As will be seen below, the term "full course meal" is defined for this purpose as a meal consisting of a salad or vegetable, an entrée, a beverage, and bread. When the Late Nite Menu is reviewed with this definition in mind, the factual determination is inescapable that the agents could have ordered such entrées as chicken strips, chicken wings, or fried calamari. They also could have ordered a vegetable ("beer battered veggies") from the Late Nite Menu. Half of the items (entrée and vegetable) constituting a "full course meal," in other words, appeared on the face of the Late Nite Menu. No beverages were listed in the Late Nite Menu. The agents, however, ordered (and were served) sodas and beer. The evidence thus establishes that non-menu items were, in fact, available when the agents visited. Moreover, it is found, the "beverage" requirement for a "full course meal" plainly was met. The only item needed to complete a "full course meal" is bread.4 There is no direct evidence that bread was not available. Perhaps it might be inferred, based on the absence of an obvious bread item on the Late Nite Menu, that no bread could be had. The undersigned declines to draw such an inference, however, because (as found above) other non-menu items were available upon request. Nor would the "fact" that the "kitchen was closed" (which it was not) be a sufficient basis for the undersigned to infer that bread was unavailable. Without more evidence than was adduced in this case, there is not a sufficiently convincing reason for the undersigned to infer that some slices of bread or a few rolls, for example, could not have been found in the restaurant, were a patron to have requested bread with his order of, say, chicken strips (entrée), onion rings (vegetable), and a soda (beverage). The problem with the Division's case, at bottom, is that the agents did not do enough to establish, affirmatively, the negative proposition that the Division must prove, i.e. that a full course meal was not available.5 Because it was (or should have been) clear to the agents that a vegetable, entrée, and beverage were available, they should have asked, specifically, for bread. They did not. The only off-menu item which the agents requested (other than drinks) was a hamburger. The evidence being insufficient to prove that a "full course meal" could not be had on the occasions in question, it must be concluded, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Barrett is not guilty of serving alcohol without simultaneously making full course meals available, as charged in the Administrative Action [Complaint].
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order finding Barrett not guilty of the instant charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.stae.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 2008.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusive of law, it is Recommended that the amended administrative complaint filed against Respondents be dismissed with prejudice. DONE and entered this 23rd day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23 day of May, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Lamar submitted a permit application for a location 120 feet west of Hickory Avenue, in Bay County, Florida, on the south side of U.S. 98, on November 25, 1985, and resubmitted that application on December 16, 1985. On January 8, 1986, DOT denied the application solely because of spacing conflicts with permit Nos. AD089-10 and AD090-10 held by Headrick. That denial was made in a Memorandum of Returned Application. The Memorandum of Returned Application contained the following statement: PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT IF YOU BELIEVE YOUR APPLICATION HAS BEEN INAPPROPRIATELY DENIED, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING UNDER SECTION 120.57, FLORIDA STATUTES, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE. THE SUBMITTED HEARING REQUEST SHALL GIVE A BRIEF STATEMENT SETTING FORTH THE REASON(S) FOR REVIEW. SUCH HEARING REQUEST MUST BE FURNISHED TO: THE CLERK OF AGENCY PROCEEDINGS FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 605 SUWANNEE STREET, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 Lamar requested an administrative hearing by letter dated March 13, 1986. On March 12, 1986, Headrick applied for a permit for a sign to be located on the south side of U.S. 98, 285 east of Hickory Avenue, in Bay County, Florida. By letter dated March 31, 1986, the Headrick application was returned unapproved because of a pending administrative hearing requested by Lamar concerning the location of permits AD089-10 and AD090-10. This letter did not advise Headrick of its rights to an administrative hearing. Headrick did not request a hearing for these applications. Lamar applied for a permit for a sign location on the south side of U.S. 98, 120 feet west of Hickory Avenue, in Bay County, Florida, again on March 13, 1986. A Memorandum of Returned Application, dated April 3, 1986, was sent to Lamar, denying the application because of a spacing conflict with Permits AD089-10 and AD090-10 located 100 feet westerly of Hickory Avenue on the eastbound (south) side of U.S. 98. This Memorandum contained the same language as that set forth above and, by letter dated April 18, 1986, Lamar requested an administrative hearing. This request resulted in Case No. 86-1707T herein. Another case, with DOT as Petitioner, Headrick as Respondent, and Lamar as Intervenor, Case No. 85-4165T, resulted in a Final Order dated September 2, 1986, revoking Permits AD089-10 and AD090-10. The Final Order was based upon findings that Headrick was advised on August 9, 1985, by the property owner, that the property was being sold and that Headrick had thirty (30) days to remove its sign. Further, by letter dated October 17, 1985, the property owner advised DOT that Headrick no longer had a valid lease for the signs and the signs had been removed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the December 16, 1985, application filed by Lamar Advertising company for a location on the south side of U.S 98, 120 feet west of Hickory Avenue, in Bay County, Florida, be GRANTED. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1043T The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Lamar Advertising Company Each of the following proposed findings are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(1); 3(2); 4(2); 5(2); 6(1); 7(3); 8(3); 9(1 and 3); and 10(4). Proposed finding of fact 11 is rejected as unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Transportation 1. Each of the following proposed findings are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 3(3); and 4(4). Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Intervenor, Headricks Outdoor Advertising 1. Each of the following proposed findings are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(2); 2(2); 3(2); 4(1); 5(1); and 6(4). COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara W. Palmer, Esquire Beggs & Lane 700 Blount Building Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576 Vernon L. Whittier, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William G. Warner, Esquire 565 Harrison Avenue Post Office Drawer 335 Panama City, Florida 32402 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwanne Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Objections to time involved in the Notice of Hearing was wavied by the parties. The parties were present. Respondent admitted that he had erected a sign near State Road 71, 1 8/10 miles south of the Calhoun County county line, with copy: Cypress Lodge - Fish Camp - Motel, a double faced sign. He admitted that he had no permits for 1974, 1975 nor for the current year. Respondent admitted that he had made no application to the Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, before employing a man to erect the sign. Respondent had no written lease agreement with the owners of the property upon which the sign is erected. The Petitioner claims a 33 foot right of way by maintenance and there is no controversy as to whether the State actually owns the 33 foot right of way it claims by maintenance although the State has no deed for said right of way. The subject sign is 12 feet from the nearest edge of the 33 foot right of way claimed by the State. Said 12 feet is 3 feet less than the required 15 feet from the nearest edge of the right of way of State Road 71.
Conclusions RECOMMENDATION: Inasmuch as the violation is the difference between 12 feet and 15 feet and the reerection of subject signs would destroy a wooded area; and the secondary road is now cluttered with nonconforming signs'. and it is the testimony of the owner that he intends to remove and redo the subject signs eventually but not this year; it is recommended that a permit be issued for subject signs upon payment of permit fees for the past years and upon a date certain after 1976 for removal of subject signs. The Department adopts the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law of the Hearing Officer, but is unable to accept her Recommendation that the sign be permitted to remain in place. Once the determination is made that the subject sign violates the setback requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, it becomes the duty of the Department to follow the provisions of the law and order the Sign removed. IT IS ORDERED, therefore, that the subject sign be removed thirty-five (35) days from the date of mailing a copy of this Order to Respondent, provided no petition for review of this Order has been filed with a court of competent jurisdiction, in which event thus Order will be stayed. IT IS ORDERED this 18th day of January, 1977. TOM WEBB, JR. SECRETARY STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA Copies furnished: Philip S. Bennett, Attorney Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building John W. Scruggs, Attorney District III Office Department of Transportation Chipley, Florida Delphene C. Strickland, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John C. Dill Route 3, Box 172 Wewahitchka, Florida 32465 Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Right of Way Bureau Department of Transportation Tallahassee, Florida
Recommendation Inasmuch as the violation is the difference between 12 feet and 15 feet and the reerection of subject signs would destroy a wooded area; and the secondary road is now cluttered with nonconforming signs; and it is the testimony of the owner that he intends to remove and redo the subject signs eventually but not this year; it is recommended that a permit be issued for subject signs upon payment of permit fees for the past years and upon a date certain after 1976 for removal of subject signs. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of May, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Scruggs, Jr., Esquire Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Staff Attorney Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Department of Transportation Chipley, Florida Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John C. Dill, Respondent Route 3, Box 172 Mr. J.E. Jordan Wewahitchka, Florida 32465 District Sign Coordinator Department of Transportation Post Office Box 607, US Highway 90 Chipley, Florida 32428 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN RE: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW Petitioner, AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED vs. CASE NO. 75-1936T JOHN AND JUANITA DILL, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact On or about September 30, 1980, petitioner mailed its application to respondent for registration of the trademark "Cachet". Accompanying the application were a check for fifteen dollars ($15.00) and shoe insoles stamped "Cachet", each bearing an escutcheon and the legend "MADE IN SPAIN". On October 14, 1980, respondent returned petitioner's application, declining to register "Cachet" as a trademark in the absence of consent by Cachet, Inc., an unrelated active Florida corporation for profit with a Miami address, duly registered with respondent. Cachet, Inc. has not registered any trademark with respondent, and does not sell shoes. Ms. Nettie Sims, chief of respondent's bureau of corporate records and an employee of respondent for 27 years, testified that this action was in keeping with respondent's policy going back as far as she could remember.
The Issue Whether Petitioners' applications for the delinquent renewal of their special restaurant licenses pursuant to Section 561.27(2), Florida Statutes, should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Notices of Intent to Deny.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: There are various types of DABT-issued licenses authorizing the retail sale of alcoholic beverages. Among them are quota licenses, SRX licenses, and SR licenses. All three of these licenses allow the licensee to sell liquor, as well as beer and wine. Quota licenses, as their name suggests, are limited in number. The number of quota licenses available in each county is based upon that county's population. SRX and SR licenses are "special" licenses authorizing the retail sale of beer, wine, and liquor by restaurants. There are no restrictions on the number of these "special" licenses that may be in effect (countywide or statewide) at any one time. SRX licenses are "special restaurant" licenses that were originally issued in or after 1958.3 SR licenses are "special restaurant" licenses that were originally issued prior to 1958. For restaurants originally licensed after April 18, 1972, at least 51 percent of the licensed restaurant's total gross revenues must be from the retail sale of food and non- alcoholic beverages.4 Restaurants for which an SR license has been obtained, on the other hand, do not have to derive any set percentage or amount of their total gross revenues from the retail sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages. DABT-issued alcoholic beverage licenses are subject to annual renewal.5 License holders who have not timely renewed their licenses, but wish to remain licensed, may file an Application for Delinquent Renewal (on DABT Form 6015). Until recently, it was DABT's longstanding policy and practice to routinely grant applications for the delinquent renewal of SR and other alcoholic beverage licenses, regardless of the reason for the delinquency. DABT still routinely grants applications to delinquently renew alcoholic beverage licenses other than SR licenses, but it now has a "new policy" in place with respect to applications for the delinquent renewal of SR licenses. The "new policy" is to deny all such applications based upon these SR licenses' not having been in "continuous operation," action that, according to DABT, is dictated by operation of Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes, a statutory provision DABT now claims it had previously misinterpreted when it was routinely granting these applications. Relying on Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes, to blanketly deny all applications for the delinquent renewal of SR licenses was the idea of Eileen Klinger, the head of DABT's Bureau of Licensing. She directed her licensing staff to implement the "new policy" after being told by agency attorneys that this "was the appropriate thing [from a legal perspective] to do." Abkey and Amy Cat have SR licenses that were originally issued in 1956 "per general law and not pursuant to any special or local act." Maneros has an SR license that was originally issued in 1952 "per general law and not pursuant to any special or local act." As applicants applying to delinquently renew their SR licenses, Petitioners are substantially affected by DABT's "new policy" that SR licenses cannot be delinquently renewed because they have not been in "continuous operation," as that term is used in Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes. Their applications for the delinquent renewal of their licenses would have been approved had the status quo been maintained and this "new policy" not been implemented. Abkey filed its application (on DABT Form 6015) for the delinquent renewal of its SR license (which had been due for renewal on March 31, 2005) on February 21, 2007. On the application form, Abkey gave the following "explanation for not having renewed during the renewal period": "Building was sold. Lost our lease." On April 2, 2007, DABT issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Abkey's application. DABT's notice gave the following reason for its intended action: The request for delinquent renewal of this license is denied. Florida Statute 561.20(5) exempted restaurant licenses issued prior to January 1, 1958 from operating under the provisions in 561.20(4) as long as the place of business was in continuous operation. This business failed to renew its license on or before March 31, 2005, therefore it did not comply with the requirements and is no longer valid. Maneros filed its application (on DABT Form 6015) for the delinquent renewal of its SR license (which had been due for renewal on March 31, 2005) on June 4, 2007. On the application form, Maneros gave no "explanation for not having renewed during the renewal period"; however, the application was accompanied by a letter from a Maneros representative, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: I am today submitting a delinquent renewal application for the above-referenced alcoholic beverage license. The building has been demolished, and there is a vacant lot at the site at this time. Redevelopment is scheduled for this area, and I expect new construction to begin shortly. The license was first issued to this location 55 years ago. I have inquired with the City of Hallandale Beach, Florida, and there remains a question as to whether zoning approval for this type of alcoholic beverage license would be permitted under current uses once reconstruction is complete. The licensee of record wishes to reinstate and possibly use or transfer the license. . . . On June 8, 2007, DABT issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Maneros' application. DABT's notice gave the following reason for its intended action: The request for delinquent renewal of this license is denied. Florida Statute 561.20(5) exempted restaurant licenses issued prior to January 1, 1958 from operating under the provisions in 561.20(4) as long as the place of business was in continuous operation. This business failed to renew its license on or before March 31, 2005, therefore it did not comply with the requirements and is no longer valid. SR licenses will not be allowed to be moved from the location where the license was originally issued. Amy Cat filed its application (on DABT Form 6015) for the delinquent renewal of its SR license (which had been due for renewal on March 31, 1999) on December 6, 2006. On the application form, Amy Cat gave the following "explanation for not having renewed during the renewal period": "Building was closed." On June 8, 2007, DABT issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Amy Cat's application. DABT's notice gave the following reason for its intended action: The request for delinquent renewal of this license is denied. Florida Statute 561.20(5) exempted restaurant licenses issued prior to January 1, 1958 from operating under the provisions in 561.20(4) as long as the place of business was in continuous operation. This business failed to renew its license on or before March 31, 1999, therefore it did not comply with the requirements and is no longer valid. SR licenses will not be allowed to be moved from the location where the license was originally issued.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order granting Petitioners' applications for the delinquent renewal of their SR licenses. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2008.
