The Issue Whether Respondent's pronouncement that special restaurant licenses issued prior to January 1, 1958, that have not remained in "continuous operation" are thereby (as a result of their lack of "continuous operation") rendered invalid pursuant to Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes, and therefore not subject to delinquent renewal pursuant to Section 561.27, Florida Statutes (Challenged Statement) is a rule that violates Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged by Petitioners.
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 1958.2 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.3 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.4 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." As applicants applying to delinquently renew their SR licenses (which were both originally issued in 1956), 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. 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.
The Issue By Notice to Show Cause filed August 24, 1977, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Petitioner, seeks to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the license of P & D, Inc. t/a Pete and Lenny's. As grounds therefor it is alleged that on or about June 29, 1977 Respondent failed to discontinue the sale of alcoholic beverages when the service of full course wools had been discontinued. Three witnesses were called by Petitioner, two witnesses were called by Respondent and one exhibit was admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact P & D, Inc. t/a Pete and Lenny's holds a 4 COP special restaurant beverage license and the Hearing Officer has jurisdiction over the parties and the violations alleged. On or about 12:30 a.m. June 29, 1977 beverage agents Meek and Shepherd entered Pete and Lenny's, seated themselves at the bar and ordered drinks. After finishing their drink they ordered a second drink and inquired of the bartender, Richard Bohan, if they could get food. He replied that they could get sandwiches at the Banana Boat next door. Further questioning by the agents elicited responses that Respondent had stopped serving and the cook had been transferred next door, that the Banana Boat served sandwiches until 1:30 a.m., that Respondent usually offered New York strip steaks but "not this late", and that the Banana Boat and Pete and Lenny's were owned by the same corporation. After identifying themselves as beverage agents and asking for the manager, Meek and Shepherd inspected the kitchen and restaurant area. Inspection of the kitchen revealed the only cooking equipment to be a microwave oven, empty icebox at 420 F, no evidence that food had been prepared in the kitchen for several days, insufficient silver to serve 200 diners simultaneously as required by regulations for special restaurant licenses, and musicians instrument cases occupying a substantial portion of the kitchen floor. Unopened boxes of silver was produced from the storeroom in sufficient quantity to meet the minimum requirements of the regulations. Respondent's witnesses testified that the icebox had been inoperative for a day or two and food had been removed to next door, but that they were not refusing to serve full course meals. The only meal offered appears to have been the New York strip steak either cooked next door or in the microwave oven. No facilities were available in the kitchen with which to prepare vegetables and these witnesses testified potato salad was served as the vegetable. Pete and Lenny's is a night club where the music is loud and continuous. When the live band is on break recorded music is provided. On the evening of the inspection by beverage officers Meek and Shepherd little, if any, food had been served in Pete and Lenny's.
Findings Of Fact Mrs. Joan Marotta is president, secretary and treasurer of petitioner Little Italy at the Atrium, Inc. Mrs. Marotta took over the management of Little Italy Restaurant sometime before November 30, 1978. At all pertinent times, Little Italy Restaurant has had no license to sell alcoholic beverages of any kind, but has had a policy of furnishing wine to its patrons, without additional charge. Since September of 1977, Little Italy Restaurant has advertised in the Hallandale Digest. These advertisements list the house specialties and state "Complimentary Glass Of Wine." Petitioner's exhibit No. 1. Ordinarily, a single glass of wine accompanies dinner. But Joseph J. Rocaro remembers occasions when he and possibly another diner in his party received more than one complimentary glass of wine while eating at Little Italy Restaurant. Vito Raguso has also had more than one glass of wine with a meal, at no extra charge, and was served a complimentary glass of wine without ordering a meal. In November of 1978, Officer Pollack of the Hallandale Police Department ate at Little Italy Restaurant on two occasions. Both times he was served wine. On the first occasion, he had a single glass of wine for which he was not charged. During the later visit, he had two glasses of wine, and was charged for the second glass of wine. Officer Pollack reported this incident to respondent. As a result, David Shomers and Jean Mignolet, employed by respondent as beverage officers, arrived at the Little Italy Restaurant at 7:30 o'clock on the evening of November 30, 1978. Disguisd as a young couple going out to eat on their own money, they ordered clams casino, linguini and egg plant parmesan. Their waiter, Joseph DeMartini, in his second or third day of employment with petitioner, told them that wine was complimentary. At their request, he brought each of them second glass of wine. When they received their check, they inquired about the item "2R.W. $1.00." The waiter informed them that he had been told by Salvador Maita to charge for a second glass of wine. Officers Shomers and Mignolet then ordered a third glass of wine each. The waiter brought the wine and altered their check to add another dollar to their bill. Salvador Maita is semi-retired from the plumbing supplies business. He was a good friend of Mrs. Marotta's father and occasionally fills in for Mrs. Marotta. On the night of November 30, 1978, at her request, he had taken over management of the restaurant, while she went shopping. After their meal, Officer Shomers called the police who, upon arriving at Little Italy Restaurant, arrested Messrs. Maita and DeMartini, and seized a gallon of chablis and opened bottles of champagne, Marsala and brandy. After obtaining a search warrant, Officer Shomers returned on December 12, 1978, and seized additional bottles of wine, three carafes of wine from the waiters' station and various bottles of liqueur." Also seized on December 12, 1978, were "guest checks" on one of which there appeared "1 Caroff --- 300." Respondent's exhibit No. 4. The champagne was the uncontroverted residue of a recent celebration of the birth of a child to the chef's wife. The brandy was used for cheesecake and other cooking purposes. Marsala was used in the preparation of Veal Marsala. Mrs. Marotta testified convincingly that whenever she hires a new waiter, she instructs him not to charge for wine. She had no knowledge beforehand that the waiter DeMartini was charging for wine, as he did beyond one glass per patron. At the hearing, neither petitioner nor her counsel was aware that giving wine away in connection with selling meals at Little Italy Restaurant might violate any law.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent issue the beverage license for which petitioner has applied. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of January, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Sheldon Golding, Esquire 700 Southeast 3rd Avenue Suite 200 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact In December, 1982, DABT issued an alcoholic beverage license (Lic. no. 15-1163, Series 4-COP SRX) under its SRX classification to respondent to operate a restaurant with liquor sales on the premises. The restaurant was known as "Thee Doll House Beach," at 199 East Cocoa Beach Causeway, in Cocoa Beach, Florida. A requirement of the license was that revenue from sales of alcoholic beverages equal or exceed 51 percent of gross sales. Respondent opened "Thee Doll House Beach" for business in January, 1983. The business operated as a buffet restaurant, with a fixed-price, "all- you-can-eat" menu. Meals consisted of a hot entree, chosen from baked ham, roast beef and turkey; a selection of four or five hot vegetables; a large salad bar; two soups; and a desert tray, with pies, pastries and cakes. The business also offered alcoholic beverages for sale in the restaurant and at a bar. A "Las Vegas-style" show was presented nightly at eight o'clock, although the restaurant opened at noon. The first month's (January 1983) sales of food only reached 40.6 percent of gross sales, and subsequent efforts of the respondent to reach 51 percent were never successful. The initial price of a buffet meal was $4.95 per person, which attracted a sizeable number of patrons, many of them senior citizens. However, the respondent found that due to the extensive food menu and the cost of preparation and service, it was losing money on each meal sold. So it increased its meal price to $5.95, which resulted in a drastic drop in business, apparently due to the inability of senior citizens to pay the higher price. It was in this particular group that the most noticeable decrease in attendance occurred. The respondent took various steps to increase its food sales. "Early- bird" specials were introduced at a lower price; extensive newspaper, radio and television advertising was utilized to promote the buffet. Nevertheless, at the end of 1983, the business had shown an overall food sales of only 31 percent. Monthly percentage figures are as follows: DATE FOOD/NON-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERCENTAGE ALCOHOLIC PERCENTAGE January 1983 40.5 59.5 February 1983 27.1 72.9 March 1983 37.3 62.7 April 1983 33.5 66.5 May 1983 31.9 68.1 June 1983 29.1 70.9 July 1983 27.5 72.5 August 1983 23.9 76.1 September 1983 24.1 75.9 October 1983 23.4 76.6 November 1983 23.6 76.4 December 1983 23.3 76.7 The respondent's problems were compounded by the fact that it was operating in a difficult, if not depressed market, where financial conditions had limited the discretionary income available to restaurant-going consumers. Other restaurants in the area were having to cut back operations or terminate business altogether. During the year in question, the respondent held itself out to be a restaurant, not a lounge, and its primary emphasis in advertising, in its internal business operation and in its physical layout, emphasized food sales as opposed to liquor sales. During the time period in question the price of a meal at Thee Doll House Beach was significantly below its fair market value. The respondent attempted to increase its food sales by lowering prices, which, in turn, decreased the percentage of gross food sales. According to the evidence, a reasonable price for the menu offered, based on a comparison with other restaurants in Central Florida, would have been $8-$10. Using those price figures, the percentage of food sales to gross revenues at Thee Doll House Beach would have exceeded 60 percent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's beverage license be revoked but that such action be vacated if respondent surrenders its license for cancellation within 10 days of entry of DABT's final order. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 15th day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard L. Wilson, Esquire 1212 East Ridgewood Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Rule 7A-3.15(1), Florida Administrative Code, and that its special license be suspended for three days. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of April, 1983, 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 12th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Grapevine Restaurant No. One, Inc. d/b/a Grapevine Restaurant 4320 14th Street West Bradenton, Florida Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The ultimate issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for a special (SRX) restaurant alcoholic beverage license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the testimony of the witness at the hearing, and on the exhibits received in evidence at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Stipulated Facts The special restaurant license is sought for the Brass Elephant Restaurant within the corporate limits of the City of Sanibel, Florida. The restaurant is located on a 7.7-acre parcel of property adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico. The restaurant is located within a resort complex known as the Sanibel Island Hilton. Seating within the restaurant itself is limited to 100 seats by court order and zoning regulations of the City of Sanibel. No bar is maintained within the restaurant itself. The Brass Elephant Restaurant derives more than 51 percent of its revenue from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages. The Brass Elephant Restaurant has in excess of 2,500 square feet of service area. The Sanibel Island Hilton is being operated as a first-class destination resort. Hilton Corporation has stringent constraints on the operation of such a resort and has made special exceptions for this resort in light of the special zoning and building restrictions imposed by the City of Sanibel on the resort area; these special exceptions allow, inter alia, separate buildings and outside walkways. The restaurant in question is an accessory use to the Hilton Hotel, and is not an autonomous restaurant. There is no separate sign advertising the restaurant as an individual entity. Access can only be gained from the hotel grounds. By virtue of the development permit issued by the City of Sanibel, the Hilton is precluded from operating a saloon, lounge or restaurant separate and apart from its food service operation. Additional Facts Proved at Hearing The Petitioner also has a banquet facility on the premises known as the "Commodore Suite." It is located approximately 250 feet from the Brass Elephant. Meals for the Commodore Suite are prepared at the kitchen facility in the Brass Elephant. On many occasions patrons of the Commodore Suite have been served at tables simultaneously with those in the Brass Elephant, thereby making the total patrons served at one time at the two locations more than 150. The Petitioner has available on the resort premises all of the necessary equipment to serve more than 150 persons at one time in the Brass Elephant, though the City of Sanibel prohibits it from having more than 100 seats in the restaurant. In addition to the restaurant and the banquet room, there is also a pool bar on the Petitioner's resort premises. The restaurant, pool bar, and banquet room are physically separate from each other. The distance between the restaurant and the banquet room is approximately 250 feet and the distance between the restaurant and pool bar is about the same. There are no separate walkways from the various buildings to the restaurant. To walk from the restaurant to the banquet room, one has to walk across a street, part of a parking lot, and around or under one of the other buildings at the resort. To walk from the pool bar to the restaurant or the banquet room, one has to walk around or through another building. The foregoing paragraphs numbered 1 through 16 comprise all of the findings of fact in this case. Such findings include the substance of all of the findings proposed by the Petitioner and the substance of the vast majority of the facts proposed by the Respondent. To the extent I have not made certain proposed findings of fact, such proposed findings are irrelevant and immaterial to the issues to be decided in this case.
Recommendation For all of the reasons set forth above, I recommend that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issue a Final Order denying the application of Shell Harbor Group, Inc., for a special restaurant liquor license. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of May, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 1st day of May, 1985.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensee holding a 4COP SRX beverage license as a special restaurant licensee. The Respondent originally applied for a 4COP SRX license on January 26, 1977; however, at that time, he received licensure only as a 2COP. On the 2COP application, the Respondent stated that he did not have any partners. The Respondent reapplied for a 4COP SRX license two months later, at which time he was inspected and approved. This application, which was typed by the local beverage office from the original application filed by the Respondent, did not reflect that the Respondent had any partners in this business. The Respondent signed this application, which was brought to the Manhattan Restaurant by the officers conducting the inspection. Between the approval of his original license and application for the 4COP SRX license, the Respondent had entered into a limited partnership agreement with Tommie Battie. Subsequent to obtaining their license as a 4COP SRX, Battie and the Respondent had a disagreement over the financial arrangements in their limited partnership agreement. Battie reported to the local beverage office that he was a limited partner in this business. On the same afternoon that Battie advised the Beverage Department that he was a limited partner, agents of the local office inspected the Respondent's licensed premises at approximately 2:00 p.m. At the time the Respondent was inspected certain alleged deficiencies were reported. The Respondent allegedly did not have sufficient food on hand to serve 150 patrons a full-course meal and allegedly did not have business records on the premises regarding his sales of alcoholic beverages, and food and non- alcoholic beverages. Testimony was received regarding an inventory made of the premises at the time of the inspection. The Division was directed to copy the original inventory report and file this report as a late-filed exhibit. As of this date, this inventory has not been filed with the Hearing Officer, and it is hereby excluded from this record. The testimony revealed that the Respondent had on hand many pounds of chicken and pork chops, two loaves of bread, several large cans of green beans and potato salad, and two heads of lettuce. The Manhattan Restaurant's normal business day was from 5:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. The Respondent's sister assisted the Respondent in planning the meals. She made a list of needed grocery items when she arrived at approximately 4:00 to 4:30 p.m., and the Respondent picked up these items at a local grocery. The Respondent was bringing in chicken from a grocery shortly after the inspectors arrived at 2:00 p.m. The Respondent admitted that his business records were not on the premises and that the records which he had kept were deficient; but he stated that in the intervening year since he was inspected, he had improved his record- keeping system and now maintained adequate records on the premises. The Respondent admitted that he had not disclosed his limited partnership with Battie on his second application but had signed the application at the time of the inspection of the premises, not fully realizing that he was required to reveal Battie's interest in the business. Since the filing of this complaint, the Respondent has purchased Battie's interest in the business.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and facts and mitigation, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division assess a civil penalty in the amount of $350.00 against the Respondent for violation of Rules 7A-3.14 and 7A-2.14, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 561.17, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary J.M. Gallay, Esq. Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32304 Jack William Windt, Esq. 1939 Golf Street Sarasota, FL 33577
