Findings Of Fact Respondent Yazgi has an ownership interest in respondent Stop N Shop and is the only individual named on respondent Stop N Shop's license. Respondent Yazgi has a one-third interest in a different store at a different location in Jacksonville, which is also called Stop N Shop. Sometime before noon on October 15, 1976, Mr. Yazgi took one carton of Winston menthol cigarettes and one carton of Silver Thin cigarettes from this second store and transferred them to respondent Stop N Shop where they were offered for resale and where petitioner's agents discovered them, except for one package which was missing. The store from which respondent took the cigarettes is not a licensed cigarette wholesaler.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner impose a civil penalty against respondent in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00) DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1977, 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: Mr. Tom Yazgi c/o Stop N Shop 2039 West 12th Street Jacksonville, Florida Mr. J. M. Ogonowski District 3 Department of Business Regulation 1934 Beachway Road Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Mr. Francis Bayley, Esquire Department of Business Regulation Legal Section Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether "[o]n or about January 16, 2009, Respondent [the holder of an SR license] failed to maintain a restaurant . . . contrary to and in violation of [s]ection 561.20(2), Florida Statutes (1953), within [s]ection 561.20(5), Florida Statutes (2008), within [s]ection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2008),"2 as alleged in the Fourth Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all material times, the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 23-02630, Series 4COP/SR (Subject License), which is a "Special Restaurant" or "SR" license issued by Petitioner. The location of the licensed premises is 17190 Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles Beach, Florida, where Respondent operates Epicure Gourmet Market and Café (Epicure) in a structure having 34,000 square feet of interior space, 10,000 to 12,000 square feet of which is open to the consuming public. The Rascal House, an eating establishment specializing in comfort food, formerly occupied this location. The Rascal House opened in 1954 and was operated under the Subject License from December 30 of that year until March 30, 2008, when it was shuttered. For the final twelve years of its existence, the Rascal House was owned and operated by Jerry's Famous Deli, Inc., Respondent's parent corporation. Respondent acquired the Rascal House property and the Subject License from Jerry's Famous Deli in 2008. After spending $7.5 million on renovations to the property,3 Respondent reopened the venue as Epicure on October 7, 2008, and has done business under that name at the former Rascal House location since. Petitioner approved the transfer of the Subject License to Respondent on October 27, 2008, following an inspection of the premises of Epicure by one of Petitioner's Special Agents, Bradley Frank, who found that all statutory requirements for "SR" licensure were met. In the summer of 2008, prior to the opening of Epicure, Respondent, through its Chief Financial Officer, Christina Sperling, submitted a Request for Initial Inspection and Food Permit Application with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Food Safety (DACS), in which it described Epicure as a "[f]ood market with indoor/outdoor seating area; but not a service restaurant." At the time of the filing of the Food Permit Application, Respondent had no intention of using waiters or waitresses to serve Epicure's patrons, although it did intend for these patrons to be able to purchase food and beverage items for consumption on the premises. Before Epicure opened, Respondent was granted a DACS Annual Food Permit, "Supermarket"-type, for the establishment, a permit it continues to hold today. On February 11, 2009, and again on July 28, 2009, Respondent applied to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (H&R) for a "public food service establishment"4 license for Epicure. Both applications were denied by H&R because Epicure was licensed (properly so, in the opinion of H&R) by DACS. The DACS permit is not the only license Respondent has for Epicure. It also has a retail license, a food market license, and a restaurant-outside dining license, all issued by the City of Sunny Isles Beach. Respondent has held these City of Sunny Isles Beach-issued licenses since 2008. On January 16, 2009, the date of the violation alleged in the Fourth Amended Administrative Complaint, Epicure had the necessary equipment and supplies (including those in its 4,000 to 5,000 square foot kitchen where food was prepared) to provide, and it did provide, patrons full course meals (including ready to eat appetizer items, ready to eat salad items, ready to eat entree items, ready to eat vegetable items, ready to eat dessert items, ready to eat fruit items, hot and cold beverages (non-alcoholic and alcoholic), and bread) for on- premises consumption at indoor and outdoor tables5 (Eating Tables) having a total seating capacity in excess of 200 and occupying more than 4,000 square feet of space.6 There were no waiters or waitresses, at that time, to take orders from, and to serve food and beverages to, patrons sitting at the Eating Tables.7 The patrons themselves brought to their Eating Tables the food and beverages they consumed there--food and beverages they obtained from manned counters (in the hot food, raw meat/fresh seafood,8 deli, bakery, and bar areas); from the fresh produce area; and from the cases, shelves, and tables where packaged food and drink items were displayed for sale. Epicure employees were stationed in the areas where the Eating Tables were located to assist patrons who wanted tableware, a glass of ice water, a packaged item (such as soup) to be opened or warmed, or their table to be cleaned. Not all of the items sold at Epicure on January 16, 2009, were consumed on the premises. True to its name, Epicure had not only a bona fide "café" operation, it also operated as a "market" where patrons shopped for "gourmet" food and other items for off-premises consumption and use. Among the food and beverage items for sale were raw meat and fresh seafood; dairy products; ready to eat deli meats and cheeses, including those packaged by the manufacturer; packaged grains; packaged stocks, including vegetable, beef, seafood, and chicken stock; condiments, including jams, jellies, and caviar; sauces; spices; eggs; chips, popcorn, and nuts; packaged crackers and cookies; ingredients (other than meat and seafood) for salads, dips, and dressings; cooked and other prepared foods ready to eat; baked bread and other bakery items; candy; fruit and other fresh produce; bottles of wine, liquor, and beer, as well as non- alcoholic beverages, including water; and packaged tea. Among the non-food items for sale were flowers; glassware; candles; napkins, paper and plastic plates and cups, and eating and serving utensils; paper towels; toilet paper; toilet bowel cleaner; wine and liquor opening devices and equipment; publications relating to alcoholic beverage products; cookbooks; and personal care and over-the-counter health care items. Shopping carts were available for patrons to use in the establishment to transport items selected for purchase. These items were paid for at the same cash registers (at the front of the establishment) where food and beverages consumed on the premises were paid for. There was considerable overlap between Epicure's "café" and "market" operations in terms of space used and items sold. Both the "café" and the "market" were fundamental and substantial components of Epicure's business, and they worked together synergistically. The record evidence does not clearly and convincingly reveal that Epicure's "café" operation was merely incidental or subordinate to its "market" operation, or that its "café" was in any way operated as a subterfuge.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, issue a final order dismissing the Fourth Amended Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2011, 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 24th day of October, 2011.
The Issue Whether or not on or about August 9, 1975, Martha L. Washington, a licensed vendor did have in her place of business, one (1) four-fifths brokenseal bottle of Barcardi Rum, Light, not authorized by law to be sold under her license, contrary to Section 562.02, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation It is recommended that a civil penalty in the amount of $200.00 be imposed against the license of Martha L. Washington for the violation established through the allegation of the subject Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Martha L. Washington 1085 Palmetto Street Bartow, Florida
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Quinto Patio Bar, Inc., d/b/a Quinto Patio Bar, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-02231, series 2-COP, for the premises known as Quinto Patio Bar, 1552 West Flagler Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. In August 1987, a joint task force was formed consisting of police officers from Metropolitan Dade County and the City of Miami, as well as investigators of the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) , to investigate narcotics complaints against numerous business establishments in Dade County. Among the businesses targeted was the licensed premises at issue in this case. On August 27, 1987, DABT Investigator Oscar Huguet and City of Miami Investigator Pedro Pidermann, operating undercover, entered the licensed premises in furtherance of the aforesaid investigation. Accompanying Investigators Huguet and Pidermann was a confidential informant (CI), who would accompany them on subsequent visits. During the course of this visit, and three other visits that predated September 5, 1987, the investigators familiarized themselves with the licensed premises, and became acquainted with the employees and patrons of the bar. On September 5, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann, in the company of the CI, returned to the licensed premises. Upon entering the premises, the investigators proceeded to play a game of pool and directed the CI to see if any drugs were available in the bar. The CI walked to the bar, spoke with employee Maria, and accompanied her back to the pool table. At that time, Maria offered to sell the investigators a gram of cocaine for $50. Investigator Pidermann handed Maria a $50 bill, Maria removed a clear plastic packet of cocaine from her pants' pocket and handed it to the CI, and the CI handed it to Investigator Huguet. Huguet held the packet up to the light at eye level, and then commented that it "looks like good stuff." This transaction took place in plain view, and in the presence of several patrons. On September 16, 1987, Investigator Huguet and the CI returned to the licensed premises and seated themselves at the bar. Huguet struck up a conversation with the barmaid Maria, and asked whether she had any cocaine for sale. Maria responded that the individual (later identified as Bandera) who brings in the "stuff" had not come in yet, but to come back the next day. Huguet told Maria he would return the next day and to reserve two grams for him. On September 17, 1987, Investigator Huguet and the CI returned to the licensed premises to make the purchase of cocaine arranged the previous day. Upon entry, Maria told Huguet that the man (Bandera) who sold the cocaine had just left through the front door. Huguet gave the CI $100, and told him to follow the individual and make the purchase. These conversations occurred in the presence of Yolanda, another employee of the licensed premises. After the purchase from Bandera, the CI returned to the bar and handed Investigator Huguet 4 clear plastic bags of cocaine. Huguet examined the bags at eye level and in the presence of Maria, and placed them in his shirt pocket. On September 18, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann, together with the CI, returned to the licensed premises and began playing pool. A short time later Bandera entered the bar and, upon being motioned over by the CI, approached the investigators. Upon greeting Bandera, Huguet asked him how much cocaine $100 would buy. Bandera replied "two grams", whereupon Huguet borrowed $50 from Pidermann to which he added $50 from his pocket, and tried to hand it to Bandera. Bandera, who had not previously met the investigators, told him no, to meet him in the restroom. Huguet met Bandera in the restroom, and purchased two grams of cocaine for $100. Upon exiting the restroom, Huguet observed Maria looking at him, held up the two clear plastic bags of cocaine, and mouthed the words "thank you" to her. On September 24, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann, together with the CI, returned to the licensed premises. During the course of this visit, Bandera was observed seated at the bar conversing with Maria. Pidermann and the CI approached Bandera, and asked whether he had any cocaine for sale. Bandera responded yes, and invited Investigator Pidermann to the restroom to consummate the transaction. Pidermann met Bandera in the restroom and purchased two grams of cocaine for $100. Upon exiting the restroom, Investigator Pidermann displayed the cocaine to Investigator Huguet and the CI above the bar. This display occurred in plain view and in the presence of several patrons. On September 25, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann, together with the CI, returned to the licensed premises and proceeded to play pool. A short time later, Bandera entered the bar, approached the pool table, and placed two clear bags of cocaine on top of the pool table in front of Investigator Huguet. Huguet asked Bandera how much the cocaine would cost and he stated $100. Huguet gave Bandera the money, picked up the packets and held them at eye level for examination. This transaction took place in plain view, in the presence of numerous patrons, and was observed by employee Asucercion. On October 2, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann returned to the licensed premise. During the course of this visit, Huguet engaged Maria in general conversation and inquired as to the whereabouts of Bandera. Maria advised Huguet that Bandera was probably at the Yambo Bar, and that if he wanted cocaine to see him there. Investigator Huguet left the licensed premises and went to the Yambo Bar, located approximately one block away. There he met with Bandera and told him that he wanted to purchase cocaine but that Pidermann had the money at the Quinto Patio Bar. Bandera told Huguet he would meet him out back of the licensed premises. Huguet returned to the Quinto Patio Bar and spoke with Investigator Pidermann in the presence of employee Asucercion. Huguet told Pidermann that for $100 Bandera would supply the cocaine. Pidermann gave Huguet the money, and Huguet went out back to purchase the cocaine from Bandera. After the purchase from Bandera, Investigator Huguet returned to the bar and placed two clear plastic bags of cocaine on the bar counter in front of Investigator Pidermann and Asucercion. Pidermann picked up the cocaine, examined it, and placed it in his pocket. On October 3, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann returned to the licensed premises and seated themselves at the bar. While the investigators were being served by Maria and an unidentified barmaid, Huguet inquired as to the whereabouts of Bandera. Maria replied that he was probably at the Yambo selling cocaine. Investigator Huguet left the licensed premises, met Bandera at the Yambo Bar, and arranged the same drug deal they had made the previous day. Huguet returned to the Quinto Patio Bar and spoke with Investigator Pidermann in the presence of Maria. Huguet again told Pidermann that for $100 Bandera would supply the cocaine. Pidermann gave Huguet the money, and Huguet went out back to purchase the cocaine from Bandera. After the purchase from Bandera, Investigator Huguet returned to the bar and seated himself next to Pidermann. In front of Maria and the unidentified bar maid, Huguet wrapped the two clear plastic bags of cocaine in a napkin and handed them to Pidermann. All of the events summarized in the preceding paragraphs took place at the licensed premises during normal business hours. At no time did respondent's employees express concern about any of the drug transactions. In fact, the proof demonstrates that the employees knew that cocaine was being sold, delivered, or possessed on the licensed premises on a regular, frequent, and flagrant basis. Ms. Dominga Lora (Lora), is the sole corporate officer of the licensee and owner of 100 percent of its stock. According to her, she is generally always on the licensed premises, and usually is seated at a small table by the pool table. Notwithstanding the fact that the lighting within the premises is good, Lora averred that she had no knowledge of any drug transactions on the premises and, in fact, doubted that any did occur. Lora's testimony is not credible. The proof is clear and convincing that the drug transactions previously discussed did occur on the licensed premises, and that they occurred in an open manner visible to patrons and employees alike. If reasonably diligent, Lora had to observe that drug transactions were occurring on the licensed premises but failed to make any reasonable effort to prevent them. Under the circumstances, it is concluded that Lora knew such sales occurred or negligently overlooked them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 23-02231, series 2-COP, issued to Quinto Patio Bar, Inc., d/b/a Quinto Patio Bar, for the premises located at 1552 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of May, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Katherine A. Emrich, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Rene Valdes 1830 N.W. 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Daniel Bosanko, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should suspend or revoke Respondent's alcoholic beverage license, pursuant to Section 561.29(1), Florida Statutes (1995),1 and Florida Administrative Rule 61A-2.022,2 because Respondent operated the licensed premises in a manner that was a public nuisance and permitted others to violate state criminal laws prohibiting the possession and use of controlled substances, or both.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating alcoholic beverage licenses. Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license number 15-02695, series 2-COP for the Red Top Lounge located at 2804 Kennedy Street, Mims, Florida (the "licensed premises"). Respondent is the sole proprietor of the licensed premises. On February 13, 1997, two of Petitioner's special agents ("SAS") and other undercover law enforcement officers entered the licensed premises as part of an ongoing narcotics investigation. Several patrons of the licensed premises were consuming marijuana and rolling marijuana cigars in plain view of Respondent's employees and managers. Respondent was not present at the time. On February 28, 1997, the same SAS and law enforcement officers returned to the licensed premises incident to the same investigation. The SAS purchased a small package of marijuana for $10 from a patron who identified himself as "Black." On March 14, 1997, the same SAS and law enforcement officers returned to the licensed premises incident to the same investigation. After midnight on March 15, 1997, the SAS purchased a small package of marijuana for $10 from a patron who identified himself as "Marty." On March 15, 1997, the same SAS and law enforcement officers returned to the licensed premises, incident to the same investigation. After midnight on March 16, 1997, the SAS purchased a small package of marijuana for $10 from an unknown patron. The disc jockey routinely encouraged patrons over the public address system to smoke marijuana inside the licensed premises. On April 25, 1997, one of the same SAS, another SAS, and other law enforcement officers returned to the licensed premises incident to the same investigation. The SAS purchased a small package of marijuana for $10 from a patron who identified himself as "Kenny Harvey." On April 26, 1997, the same SAS and law enforcement officers involved in the investigation on the previous day returned to the licensed premises. After midnight on April 27, 1997, the SAS purchased a small package of cocaine for $10 from Kenny Harvey. On May 2, 1997, two SAS previously involved in the investigation and other law enforcement officers returned to the licensed premises. After midnight on May 3, 1997, the SAS purchased a small package of cocaine for $10 from Kenny Harvey. After midnight on May 3, 1997, two SAS previously involved in the investigation and other law enforcement officers returned to the licensed premises. The SAS purchased a small package of marijuana for $10 from a patron who identified himself as "Roy." After the previous transaction on May 3, 1997, the SAS purchased a small package of cocaine for $10 from Kenny Harvey. After midnight on May 4, 1997, the SAS purchased a small package of marijuana for $10 from an unknown patron. Subsequent to each purchase of marijuana by the SAS, the items purchased were chemically analyzed in a laboratory and found to be marijuana. Subsequent to each purchase of cocaine by the SAS, the items purchased were chemically analyzed in a laboratory and found to be cocaine. The SAS involved in the investigation have extensive experience and training in narcotics investigation and detection of controlled substances. They have conducted numerous undercover investigations. Each agent has personal knowledge of the appearance and smell of marijuana. The open, flagrant, and notorious drug activity on the licensed premises was the worst each agent had observed in his career. Each time the SAS entered the licensed premises, underage patrons consumed alcoholic beverages. More than half of the patrons present on each occasion consumed and rolled marijuana cigars. The second-hand marijuana smoke inside the premises was so great that the SAS were concerned for their personal health and the affect the second-hand smoke could have on each agent if subjected to a random drug test, pursuant to agency policy. The purchase, consumption, and use of marijuana occurred in plain view of Respondent's employees and managers. Respondent's managers and employees never attempted to prohibit the illegal drug activity. Respondent was never present on the licensed premises. She was caring for her daughter who died on April 2, 1997. During the time she was caring for daughter, Respondent relinquished management and control of the licensed premises to her granddaughter and her boyfriend.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's alcohol and tobacco license. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1997.
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) Whether Respondent violated Section 562.12(1), Florida Statutes, by selling alcoholic beverages in a manner not authorized by law and/or maintaining a place where alcoholic beverages were sold unlawfully; (2) Whether Respondent violated Section 561.29, Florida Statutes, by failing to comply with the terms set forth in a prior Final Order of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco; and (3) If so, what sanctions should be imposed against Respondent's alcoholic beverage licenses.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Easy Way of Lee County, Inc., d/b/a Hollywood Underground, holds a bottle club license number 46- 03606, issued by the Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Department/Division) and has held such license since June 1995. Under this license, Respondent operates a bottle club known as Hollywood Underground (the licensed premises/the premises or Hollywood Underground) located at 16440 South Tamiami Trail, Unit 1, Fort Myers, Florida. At all times relevant to this action, Mattheos Milonas was the director, president, secretary, and treasurer of Easy Way of Lee County, Inc., d/b/a Hollywood Underground, and the holder of the above-referenced alcoholic beverage license. On or about February 12, 1999, Peggy Duffala, a special agent with the Department, organized an undercover on-site investigation of Hollywood Underground, based on a complaint that Respondent was in violation of certain laws pertaining to the sale of alcoholic beverages without a proper license. On February 12, 1999, Agent Duffala, and two other special agents of the Department, Agent David Perez and Agent Patrick McEnroe, went to the licensed premises to further the investigation. When Agent Duffala arrived, she conducted surveillance in the parking lot of the licensed premises for approximately one and a half hours. During that time, Agent Duffala observed patrons entering and exiting the premises, but saw no patrons entering the premises carrying alcoholic beverages or containers of any kind in their hands. On February 12, 1999, at or near 2:30 a.m., acting in an undercover capacity, Agent Perez and Agent McEnroe entered the licensed premises. Upon entering the premises, Agent Perez paid a $5.00 cover charge and received a wristband. Perez brought no alcohol into the premises with him on that evening. Once inside the licensed premises, Agent Perez went to the bar where he was approached by bartender Norman Vanderbiest. After Vanderbiest asked him what he would like, Agent Perez ordered a Budweiser beer. Vanderbiest retrieved the beer from the cooler behind the bar and gave Agent Perez the beer. After Perez asked how much the Budweiser cost, Vanderbiest responded, "$3.00." Agent Perez then gave $3.00 to Vanderbiest, who subsequently rang up the sale and placed the money in the cash register. At no time during the transaction described in paragraph 6 did Vanderbiest ask Agent Perez if he had brought any alcoholic beverages with him to the licensed premises. In fact, Agent Perez had not brought any alcoholic beverages into the licensed premises on August 12, 1999. Furthermore, prior to February 12, 1999, Agent Perez had never visited the licensed premises, and thus, had never taken any alcoholic beverages there. After Agent Perez purchased the Budweiser beer, he moved from the main bar area to the west end of the bar where he remained for about ten minutes. While situated at the west end of the bar, Agent Perez observed several patrons approach the bar and speak with Vanderbiest. Agent Perez was unable to hear what was being said but he observed Vanderbiest serve each patron an alcoholic beverage. After receiving the alcoholic beverages, each patron would then give Vanderbiest money. At no time during these transactions did Agent Perez observe patrons present cards to Vanderbiest to punch. Furthermore, Agent Perez did not see Vanderbiest check a logbook before he served alcoholic beverages to those patrons. From the west end of the bar, Agent Perez saw 10 to 15 patrons entering the licensed premises. During that time, Agent Perez observed that none of the patrons entering the premises brought alcoholic beverages with them. Agent Patrick McEnroe entered the premises on February 12, 1999, at about 2:30 a.m. Upon entering the premises, Agent McEnroe paid a $5.00 cover charge. Agent McEnroe brought no alcoholic beverages into the licensed premises with him nor did he receive a ticket or card to be punched. Once inside the premises, Agent McEnroe went to the bar and ordered a Bud Light beer from bartender, Norman Vanderbiest. Vanderbiest informed Agent McEnroe that the cost was $3.00, then retrieved a Bud Light beer from the cooler and handed it to Agent McEnroe. Agent McEnroe gave the bartender $3.00 for the beer. Agent McEnroe purchased three bottles of beer that evening. In none of these transactions did Vanderbiest ask Agent McEnroe if he brought any beer with him nor did he ask Agent McEnroe for a card to be punched. Later that evening, after Agents Perez and McEnroe exited the premises, Division agents, assisted by the Lee County Sheriff's Office, entered and raided the premises. During the raid, agents seized 571 containers of alcoholic beverages, $315.00 in cash from the cash register, and two notebooks. One of the notebooks seized was a log book containing entries listing alleged patrons' names along with an alcoholic beverage type, a number assigned to the beverage, and a date. The last entry in the log book was made on February 6, 1999, six days prior to the raid. Neither Agent Perez nor Agent McEnroe was listed in the logbooks. During the raid, Division agents entered the premises and arrested the manager of the club. Subsequently, the manager pled guilty in the Lee County Circuit Court to the criminal charge of keeping or maintaining a place, the licensed premises, that sold alcoholic beverages without a proper license on February 12, 1999. The licensed premises had procedures that governed how employees of Hollywood Underground were to accept and distribute beer and liquor brought into the premises by patrons. When a patron brought beer into the licensed premises, an employee of the club was to write on a card the number and kind of beer that the patron brought to the premises. Once this information was recorded on the card, the employee would give the card to the patron. After the club employee accepted the beer from and issued the card to the patron, in order for the patron to retrieve one or more of the beers, the patron was to present the card to the bartender. The bartender was to then give the patron the requested number of beers and punch the card the corresponding number of times, thereby indicating to both the bartender and patron the number of beers the patron had been given and how many remained. To facilitate ease in the dispensing of the beer, like brands of beer were commingled and placed in a cooler with other containers of identical brands. No attempt was made to designate or label containers of beer by the patrons who brought them into the premises. With regard to liquor, the policy of Hollywood Underground was that bottles of liquor brought in by patrons were to be identified in a manner to ensure that patrons were served liquor only from the bottles that they brought to the premises. In accordance with this policy, when a patron brought a bottle of liquor into the licensed premises, an employee of the club was to put a label on each bottle and write a number on the label. Next, in a log book, the employee was to write the number designated on the club's label, the kind of liquor, and the name of the patron who brought in that bottle of liquor. On February 12, 1999, these policies were not implemented by employees of the licensed premises as evidenced by the transactions involving Agents Perez and McEnroe. In the fall of 1998, Tom Lloyd, a videographer for Channel 6 television, followed Division agents into the licensed premises for purposes of an undercover television news story regarding illegal sale of alcoholic beverages by Respondent. Lloyd did not bring any alcoholic beverages with him to the licensed premises. Nevertheless, while sitting at the bar, Lloyd was approached by a bartender who solicited an order from Lloyd for an alcoholic beverage. Lloyd requested a rum and coke and was sold a rum and coke for $4.00 by the bartender. Prior to the Administrative Action which is the subject of this proceeding, three other administrative actions have been filed against Hollywood Underground for violations of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. All of the three previously filed administrative actions resulted in disciplinary action against Respondent's license. Respondent was charged in two separate administrative actions (DBPR Case Nos. 46-95-0582 and 46-95-0089) with selling alcoholic beverages in a manner not permitted by license, in violation of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. These two cases were resolved by combined Consent Order (Final Order No. BPR-96-02540), wherein Respondent paid a $5,000 civil penalty and agreed that its "agents, servants, or employees would not sell or supply alcoholic beverages to any person other than the patron who brought such alcoholic beverages onto the premises." Respondent also agreed to diligently "ensure that no alcoholic beverage would be dispensed to any person that did not bring such alcoholic beverage onto the premises." In DBPR Case No. 46-97-0890, Respondent was charged for the third time with selling alcoholic beverages in a manner not permitted by license, a violation of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. This case was resolved by Consent Order (Final Order No. BPR-98-06888), wherein Respondent paid a $7,500 civil penalty and agreed to take corrective action regarding the unlawful sale of alcohol on the premises. Respondent agreed to prevent further occurrences of violations of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. In paragraph 6 of the Consent Order, Respondent agreed and acknowledged that revocation of its alcoholic beverage license would be the appropriate sanction for any subsequent administrative action against the Respondent's license alleging failure of the Respondent to comply with the beverage laws.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Action; that Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 39-01181 be revoked; and that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $1,000 per count for a total of $2,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 16th day of February, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Miriam S. Wilkinson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Julius F. Parker, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkerson, Bell and Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph Martelli, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue Whether or not on or about September 28, 1976, one Leouigildo Hernandez, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in his possession, on the aforementioned beverage license premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about September 28, 1976, one Leouigildo Hernandez, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in his possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance; cocaine, and whether said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $100 in U.S. currency, and whether said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage license premises, on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 30, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, on the aforementioned beverage license premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine contrary to Section 893.13, F.S. thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 30, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc. d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, and whether or not said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $100 U.S. currency, and whether or not said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage licensed premises on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on November 4 & 5, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, on the aforementioned beverage licensed premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about November 4 & 5, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, and whether or not said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $2,200, U.S. currency, and whether or not said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage licensed premises, on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. A count seven was originally charged against the Respondent, but that charge was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. A count eight was originally charged against the Respondent, but that charge was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. Whether or not on or about November 20, 1976, a bottle of non-tax paid alcoholic beverage, labeled Ron Medeliin Rum, was discovered on the licensed premises, and whether or not said bottle bore no federal strip stamp or any other indication that the lawfully levied federal and/or state taxes had been paid, contrary to Section 562.16, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about September 1, 1976, and continuing until on or about November 24, 1976, the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did maintain a public nuisance, to wit; maintain a place where controlled substances were illegally sold, kept or used, contrary to Section 823.10, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not investigation revealed that on or about November 20, 1976, the Respondent, its agent, servant, or employee, did remove, deposit, or conceal a beverage, to wit, one (1) 2,000 cc bottle of Ron Medeliin Rum, with the intent to defraud the state of tax, contrary to Section 562.32, F.S. and Section 562.30, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this complaint the Respondent, Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, was the holder of a license no. 23-1901, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage, and that license was for the premises located at 1601 Collins Avenue Miami Beach, Florida. The management of the licensed premises makes arrangements to hire entertainment in the form of musicians. This arrangement is made through agreement with the band leader. One of these agreements was made with a band leader who had as his band member Leouigildo Hernandez. On September 28, 1976, Officer E. Santiago, of the Miami Beach, Florida, Police Department entered the licensed premises and while in the licensed premises entered into discussion with Hernandez. Hernandez left the bar proper and came back with an amount of a substance known as cocaine. Santiago paid Hernandez $100 for the quantity of cocaine and the sale was consummated in the licensed premises. On October 30, 1976, Officer Santiago returned to the licensed premises. Santiago had been in the licensed premises many times prior to that occasion. Among the persons he had seen in the bar was Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales. Morales was the girlfriend of Anthony Bilbao, one of the principals in the ownership of the licensed premises. Morales had also served Santiago drinks in the bar on more than 50 occasions. On the evening in question, October 30, 1976, discussion was entered into between Santiago and Morales about the purchase of a substance known as cocaine. Morales produced a quantity of the cocaine and reached across the bar that she was standing behind and handed the quantity of the substance cocaine to Santiago, who was in the area where customers were served at the bar. Santiago paid her $100 for the cocaine. In the late hours of November 4 and early hours of November 5, 1976, Santiago again entered the licensed premises, his purpose for going to the licensed premises was to purchase a large quantity of cocaine from Morales. This arrangement had been entered into based upon the sample of cocaine that had been provided him on October 30, 1976. Morales left the licensed premises and returned 3 to 5 minutes later with a quantity of cocaine, for which Santiago paid her $2,200. On one of the above occasions of a purchase of cocaine from Morales, while in the licensed premises, Morales had conferred with Anthony Bilbao. In the course of that conference, Bilbao told Morales to be careful to whom she sold because "you don't know him", meaning Santiago. In the course of an investigation in the license premises on November 28, 1976, a bottle of non-tax-paid alcoholic beverage, labeled Ron Medeliin Rum, was discovered in the licensed premises, which bore no federal strip stamp or any other indication that the lawfully levied federal and/or state taxes had been paid. The size of the bottle was 2,000 cc.
Recommendation Based upon the violations as established in the hearing on the notice to show cause, it is recommended that the license no. 23-1901 held by Respondent, Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee ,Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Michael B. Solomon, Esquire Division of Beverage Theodore M. Trushin, Law Office The Johns Building 420 Lincoln Road, Number 600 725 Bronough Street Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Nathaniel Barone, Esquire 777 N.E. 79th Street Miami, Florida 33138
Recommendation Based upon Petitioner's failure to appear, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: A default be entered against Petitioner and a final order be issued denying Petitioner's application for a beverage license. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of June, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Melvin Stewart c/o Mel's Beer & Wine Lounge 301 N.E. 62nd Street Miami, Florida Dennis E. LaRosa, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondents committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Action dated June 22, 2004, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Division is the state agency charged with administering Florida's alcoholic beverage and tobacco law. § 561.02, Fla. Stat. (2004). The Food Mart holds a Series 2-APS license, numbered 16-13705. On June 2, 2004, the Division conducted an inspection of the premises of the Food Mart. The inspector found six bottles filled with a cream-colored liquid. One bottle was on the counter, next to the cash register, and the other five bottles were inside a cabinet behind the cash register, wrapped in newspaper. The bottles contained a homemade Haitian beverage called cremasse. A friend made the beverage for Mr. Cebatien Dierestil, who intended to serve the beverage at a party at his home. The person who made the beverage took the six bottles to the Food Mart to give it to Mr. Dierestil, but Mr. Dierestil was not in the store at the time. A Food Mart employee placed the bottle of cremasse on the counter, even though it was for Mr. Dierestil's personal use. Cremasse contains a small amount of alcohol, but Mr. Dierestil did not know the exact amount. During the inspection of Food Mart on June 2, 2004, the Division found 97 packages of cigarettes offered for sale that did not carry the stamps indicating that the applicable taxes had been paid on the cigarettes. Some of the 79 unstamped packages of Newport cigarettes and of the 18 unstamped packages of Marlboro cigarettes were commingled with other packages of cigarettes displayed over the cash register, and others were in full cartons placed in the area where the extra inventory of cigarettes was kept. The cigarettes were purchased from a person that came by the Food Mart, and the invoice for the cigarettes was not among the invoices Mr. Dierestil provided to the Division's inspectors. Mr. Dierestil was not aware that the cigarette packages were supposed to carry tax stamps. The Division failed to present evidence establishing the alcoholic content of the liquid inside the bottles found at the Food Mart.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order Dismissing Count 1 of the Administrative Action against Cebatien and Marc Dierestil; Finding that Cebatien and Marc Dierestil violated Sections 210.18(1) and 210.15(1)(h), Florida Statutes; Finding that, because of these statutory violations, the Division is authorized to impose administrative penalties on Cebatien and Marc Dierestil pursuant to Section 561.29(1) and (3), Florida Statutes; Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 and ordering payment of the excise tax owing on the unstamped packages of cigarettes for the violation of Section 210.18(1), Florida Statutes; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 for the violation of Section 210.15(1)(h), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 27th day of January, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Ida Bartlett is the sole shareholder, officer and director of the Applicant corporation. She pursued the lottery drawing for Pasco County for a quota liquor license in order to embark on her own business venture involving the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption in a lounge-type situation, as well as possibly to sell alcoholic beverages in a package store for off-premises consumption. On September 18, 1984, the Division informed Ms. Bartlett by letter that she had been selected in the lottery drawing for an available quota liquor license in Pasco County. The letter advised her that she had 45 days from the date of the letter to file her application with the Tampa field office of the Division, which she did. In preparing her application, she sought the advice and counsel of her son, Charles Bartlett, an attorney who has extensive experience in commercial and real estate matters, including commercial litigation, contract litigation, landlord tenant litigation and zoning matters, as well as experience representing other quota liquor license applicants as clients. Mr. Bartlett was tendered and accepted without objection as an expert in these areas of law, and in the interpretation of contracts, leases and other documents related to these fields of law. In particular, Mr. Bartlett currently represents establishments holding liquor licenses, has recently been actively involved in leasing and licensing matters for them and was counsel for a 4-COP quota liquor license applicant in Sarasota County with regard to the same lottery drawing as the instant application. After she was advised of her successful lottery drawing and of the right to file her application within the 45 days, Mr. Bartlett and Ms. Bartlett began the preparation process for the application by attempting to locate suitable premises in Pasco County at which to locate the license and operate the related business. Mr. Bartlett contacted several real estate brokers in this connection and eventually met Mr. Harry Sasser, who had an existing lounge establishment in Hudson, Florida, Pasco County. Mr. Sasser's premises were then used for only on premises consumption of alcoholic beverages in a lounge-type situation. Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Sasser negotiated an agreement, reduced to writing and executed by the Applicant and Mr. Sasser, whereby his premises would be used for the liquor license sought by Ms. Bartlett. That agreement was entered into on November 1, 1984. It provided that upon the issuance of a license to Ms. Bartlett, Mr. Sasser would place his liquor license in escrow so that the only license applicable and used at the Sasser premises would be the license to be awarded Ms. Bartlett. Ms. Bartlett entered into this agreement in good faith and with the bona fide intent to be bound by it and to actually operate the premises under the license she sought (Applicant's Exhibit 2, in evidence). Mr. Bartlett drafted the agreement which required Mr. Sasser to lease the premises to the Applicant upon the occurrence of the condition precedent which is the granting of the liquor license. The agreement does not specify a rental amount, but rather provides that the rent shall be the prevailing market rate upon the execution of the related lease, which the parties agreed to enter into upon the granting of the license. The agreement does not specify a date certain for execution of the lease, but rather provides that the leasing of the subject premises will take effect upon the issuance of the liquor license. Mr. Bartlett established that this agreement is a legally binding document and affords the Applicant a legal right of occupancy to Mr. Sasser's premises upon the occurrence of that condition precedent. Such provisions for rental payment at market rates are common in lease agreements of that nature, and such a provision as to rental amount does not mitigate the binding effect and enforceability of such an agreement. Agreements contingent on the occurrence of a specific event which would trigger the execution of a lease to which the agreement refers, are common. Otherwise there would be no purpose to be served in leasing the premises for either party, until it is clear that the Applicant can use the premises for the purposes for which the agreement and contemplated lease are intended. Charles Bartlett and the Applicant prepared and completed the remainder of the license application and related documents to be filed with it. Mr. Sasser was actively involved in the completion and submission of the application, and indeed took it himself to the Pasco County zoning Authority to secure that body's approval of the purpose to which the premises involved would be devoted. The Pasco County Zoning Authority indicated no objection to issuance of the liquor license for the Sasser premises and it is noted in three letters, (in evidence) from the Pasco County Attorney regarding the zoning question, that the property was correctly zoned for on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages, which is what the premises were currently used for and would be used for under the sought license, at least in part. The letters from the County Attorney regarding zoning do indicate that if off-premises package store sales were engaged in under the sought liquor license, that further certification from the zoning authority concerning the question of whether that would be a substantial departure from the existing use of the premises might be necessary and that rezoning to commercial zoning might be necessary before the premises could be used for package sales for off-premises consumption. Mr. Bartlett opined, based upon his experience in similar liquor license application matters that the premises were appropriately zoned for the issuance of the subject liquor license. Mr. Sasser took the application to the appropriate health department official and secured his approval as to the suitability of the Sasser premises for the use of the liquor license. The zoning authority approval and health department approval were asserted on the face of the application when filed. On about November 1, 1984, Mr. Sasser, Mr. Bartlett, and Ms. Bartlett met at the Tampa field office of the Respondent to assemble the liquor license application, submit it, and sign the agreement concerning the use of Sasser premises. The Division's filing clerk thereupon reviewed the materials submitted with the application and the application to make certain that all information had been provided in the spaces and blanks on the application, and that it was duly executed and signed. Those parties then met with Mr. Espinola who identified himself to them as the "licensing officer" to review the completeness of the application. Mr. Espinola met with the parties for about 15 minutes to review the application and the related agreement with Mr. Sasser. After reviewing the Sasser agreement, Mr. Espinola suggested that Sasser enter into an escrow agreement for his existing liquor license for those premises, so that the Applicant's license, if issued, could be located at the Sasser premises without occurrence of the situation of two licenses being issued for the same premises. Mr. Sasser agreed and entered into and signed an escrow agreement to that effect in the presence of Mr. Espinola, Charles Bartlett and Ms. Bartlett, the principal of the applicant corporation. Mr. Espinola, on behalf of the Division, accepted the application as complete upon submission. Mr. Bartlett was advised that the acceptance of the application as complete would stand so long as he submitted an affidavit from his father concerning the source of financing for the proposed business. Mr. Bartlett had the affidavit executed the same day and sent it by Federal Express the same day to Mr. Espinola. He then called Mr. Espinola the following day to verify the receipt of the financial affidavit by Federal Express, and Mr. Espinola indicated that all was in order. Thereafter the Applicant, being advised that the application was complete and in order, waited to hear from the Division as to its decision regarding the application. Neither the Applicant nor her attorney, Mr. Bartlett, was contacted further by the Division or by anyone from its headquarters in Tallahassee concerning any questions regarding the review of the application. In the meantime, Ms. Bartlett and her attorney, Mr. Bartlett, remained in contact with Mr. Sasser to make certain that everything was still in order regarding their arrangement. Mr. Sasser gave them no indication that anything was amiss or that he had changed his position regarding escrow of his license and the lease of his premises to the applicant corporation. Since a binding agreement between the Applicant and Mr. Sasser had been entered into, and since the execution of the contemplated lease only required occurrence of the condition precedent, that is the issuance of the license, there was no reason to enter into other agreements by the parties until the license was issued. Thus, the Applicant and Mr. Sasser awaited the Division's decision before taking any further action regarding the application or the inauguration of the new business. On March 6, 1985, by letter, the Applicant was advised that its application was denied by the Division. This was the first indication the Applicant had that the application was not in order and would not be routinely approved following Mr. Espinola's assurance that the application was complete and in order. The Division indicated in its letter of denial that the bases for denial were a lack of establishment of a right of occupancy of the subject premises, and lack of sufficient zoning for the subject premises. Upon learning of the Division's denial of the application, Mr. Bartlett contacted the Tampa and Tallahassee offices of the Division seeking further explanation for the denial. He offered to file an amendment to the application to cure the alleged defects, but was informed by a staff member of Mr. Schoenfeld, the Bureau Chief's office, that amendments would not be accepted. Thereupon, the Applicant instituted this-administrative challenge to the denial of the application. During the interim period of time prior to the subject hearing, the Applicant took further steps to secure approval of the application. Thus, at Mr. Bartlett's behest, the Chief Assistant County Attorney for Pasco County provided Attorney Sandra Stockwell of the Division a letter setting forth further and clarifying the zoning authority's position regarding the Sasser premises. This letter (in evidence) makes clear that the County has no objection to the issuance of a 4-COP liquor license for the Sasser premises, although it points out that should the holder of the license desire to expand the alcoholic beverage use to include the sale of liquor for on-premises consumption then a determination would have to be obtained from the zoning administrator of the County whether or not the expansion constituted a substantial expansion of use. If the administrator determined that the expansion of use was substantial in nature, then the Board of County Commissioners would have to approve the actual sale of liquor on the premises. Correspondingly, if the holder of the license were to seek to expand the alcoholic beverage use for the Sasser premises to include the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premise consumption (package sales) the same action would be necessary prior to actual sale of the alcoholic beverages for off-premise consumption. Additionally, rezoning of property to the appropriate commercial district would be required prior to sale of alcohol for off-premise consumption. The Applicant also secured alternate premises to locate the applied-for liquor license in the event the Sasser arrangement fails to consummate or is otherwise deemed undesirable. The Applicant thus entered into a three-year lease agreement with two 5-year options for premises on U.S. 19 in the City of Port Richey. These premises had been recently used as a lounge establishment and are equipped with all required lounge and bar equipment and fixtures. The lease depicted in Applicant's Exhibit 8, in evidence, gives the Applicant a legal right to occupy the premises identified in that lease for the purposes of this license application. Those premises, additionally, are zoned for commercial use, which according to the City of Port Richey Zoning Code is appropriate for the on premises consumption of alcoholic beverages. In this connection, it was established by Mr. Bartlett, based on his personal experience in representing liquor license applicants, that the Division has approved the issuance of 4-COP liquor licenses to a number of applicants he has represented for premises zoned for on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages only without them being zoned at the time of issuance for off-premises package sales. DIVISION POLICY Mr. Barry Sehoenfeld is the Bureau Chief of Licensing and Records for the Division. He has been delegated the authority to process and finalize all quota liquor license applications and is in charge of the state-wide system for the review and issuance of alcoholic beverage licenses. He is the final decision maker on quota liquor license applications. Quota liquor licenses authorize license holders to sell alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption and/or package sales. A quota liquor license enables the holder to sell alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption, to sell such beverages in a package store capacity or both, according to Mr. Schoenfeld. Quota liquor licenses are issued on a county basis. Only a certain number of such licenses are issued in a county, depending on the population of the county. When the Division determines that it is appropriate for additional quota liquor licenses to be issued for a county, the Division holds a drawing and all interested persons may apply to get in the pool for the lottery drawing. When such a person is drawn, that person can then file an application with the Division for issuance of a liquor license. A "4-COP quota liquor license" refers to a county which has more than 100,000 population. When a party is selected from the lottery drawing to file an application for a quota liquor license, that person has 45 days from notice of the drawing to do so. The application is filed in the local field office of the Division in which the applicant seeks a license. The field office involved in this proceeding is the Tampa office. The application and all related documents must be filed with the licensing clerk of that field office, who then determines whether all documents are in order and whether the application can be accepted by the field office for review. Another staff member in the field office then meets with the applicant to determine whether all necessary forms and documents are complete. In the instant situation, that person was Mr. Espinola. According to Division policy, the field office will not accept an application if not complete. According to policy the applicant does not receive a letter regarding completeness from the field office, but simply a verbal understanding from the personnel of the field office that the application is complete upon submission and acceptance by that office. Here the Applicant was so informed. Once an application is submitted and deemed complete, the field office may ask the applicant for additional information. Requesting additional information is common practice and is often done after the 45-day submission deadline. In fact, if an application is missing the field office will contact an applicant to request that he provide the missing documents. According to Division policy, as explicated by Mr. Schoenfeld, review of an application should be performed with the applicant present so that additional information or explanation required may be done at that time. The intent of this policy is to keep the applicant advised of Division requirements and to communicate freely with an applicant to ensure that all necessary data is gathered for review. Further investigation of an application will be pursued if the field office supervisor deems that necessary and it is within the discretion of that supervisor as to whether an investigation is necessary, and if so, the scope of that investigation. If an investigation is deemed necessary, the supervisor should provide specific instructions to an investigator as to the scope of his investigation. There is no set time during which an investigation should be completed, and the scope depends on the particular circumstances of the application. It is common for an investigation to require one to to three months. The purpose of the investigation is to discover as much information as necessary to fairly make a recommendation on the application. After review by the field office, and any investigation by that office if it is deemed necessary, the field office makes a recommendation to the Division headquarters and Mr. Schoenfeld in Tallahassee regarding disposition of the license application. It is at this point that Mr. Schoenfeld becomes involved with any license application. Thereafter Mr. Schoenfeld makes a final determination on the application and the applicant is sent either a liquor license or a letter of denial. The letter of denial sets forth all bases for the Division's denial of such an application. According to statute, the application process must be completed and the Division must make its decision within 180 days. This time frame can be waived by an applicant however, if it appears for any reason that the statutory time requirement cannot be met, as for instance in situations where the premises to be used are not yet constructed or other delays have been encountered by the applicant or the Division, when both are acting in good faith. In such situations, the Division's decision on the application is placed in abeyance for an indefinite period until the premises are constructed or the other basis for delay by either the Division or the applicant in the review process have been alleviated. Mr. Schoenfeld also explained Division policy to allow for a liquor license holder to move his license to another premises by submitting an application to the Division for a transfer. Additionally, Division policy allows an applicant to propose to locate his license in a premise already holding a liquor license, if the existing license holder places his license in escrow. It is a routine matter for such previous license holders to place their licenses in escrow under these circumstances. Pursuant to the below-cited statutory authority, an applicant must have "suitable premises" in which to house or locate the liquor license for which it has applied. The Division interprets this to mean that an applicant must demonstrate a legal right of occupancy for the premises identified in an application. Mr. Schoenfeld acknowledged that the phrase "legal right of occupancy" is not defined by statute or agency rule, but that the intent is to make certain that an applicant has a lawful right to occupy the identified premises. The Division determines on a case by case basis whether an applicant has secured a lawful right of occupancy. Typically, this determination process does not employ the use of Division attorneys to review and determine from a legal standpoint whether a right of occupancy has been demonstrated. There is no statutory provision or Division rule which requires that written documentation be submitted with an application in establishing a legal right of occupancy. The Division's policy and procedures manual does not specifically require a right of occupancy document to be filed with the application. The Division's application form furthermore, does not require written documentation by the applicant to prove its legal right of occupancy. Although Mr. Schoenfeld indicated that the Division requires written documentation of an applicant's lawful right of occupancy to the identified premises, no specific type of agreement is required. Rather, any document reflecting a binding, lawful right of occupancy is sufficient, nor is it necessary that the written document be a lease agreement. In the instant case, as Mr. Bartlett established, a binding, written contract calling for the occupancy of the Sasser premises was timely executed by the parties to the application and filed with the application, which binds the parties to enter into a written lease upon the occurrence of the condition precedent, that is the issuance of the liquor license. The Division requires an applicant to show sufficient, appropriate zoning for the premises identified to be used in an application. On the second page of the application there is a section requiring indication whether the appropriate zoning authority has determined whether the identified premises are in compliance with existing zoning regulations. Additional information in the form of letters from the appropriate governing authority is commonly submitted with an application to demonstrate that the premises have sufficient zoning. A 4-COP quota liquor license authorizes on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages and/or package store sales. In some situations, existing zoning regulations permit only the on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages and not package store sales for off-premise consumption. That is the case with the Sasser premises involved herein and as to the alternate premises, depicted in Applicant's Exhibit 8, in evidence, although that property is commercially zoned. Commercial zoning also encompasses on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages only. Division policy, however, provides that conditional zoning approvals are acceptable in the process of reviewing and granting liquor licenses. The Division has approved applications where the zoning only allowed on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages and, as discussed above, in Mr. Bartlett's experience with his own clients such approval has been given where zoning only permitted on-premises consumption for quota liquor licenses on more than one occasion. In these situations, the Division's policy is that it is not responsible for enforcing the terms of the conditional zoning approval' that is a matter to be negotiated or enforced between the local zoning authority and the ultimate holder of the liquor license involved. Conditional zoning approval does not bar the issuance of a quota liquor license. Additionally, Mr. Schoenfeld corroborated Mr. Bartlett's testimony showing that it is often reasonable to waive the 180-day statutory time period to accommodate situations where an applicant must change the premises originally applied for in such instances where a landlord or owner of the premises originally identified in an application breaches the right of occupancy agreement after the application is submitted for review by the Division. In those instances, it has often been determined to be reasonable to allow an applicant to amend his application after the 45-day time period has elapsed to allow for such a change of premises. Licenses have indeed been issued frequently for alternate or changed premises from those originally identified in an application so long as an applicant has acted in good faith throughout the application process. Also, according to Division policy, if an applicant is making a good faith effort to arrange for a suitable, appropriately zoned premises from which to operate his license, the Division will permit the applicant to locate alternate premises in instances where zoning approval is denied subsequent to the 45-day period or has not yet been obtained at the end of the 45-day period. It should be noted that Mr. Bartlett described two instances where this policy was followed where the Division permitted a change of premises after submission of an application. In one case an application was submitted for premises in a shopping center not yet built. After it was filed and prior to issuance of the license, the applicant elected to change the location and to amend the application. The license was granted for the second location. In another situation an amendment to the application was effected after the 45-day period, proposing a change of premises. The amended application was approved by the Division and the zoning on the changed location allowed only on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages and not package store sales. Even so the Division approved issuance of that license. DIVISION REVIEW Mr. William Fisher is a law enforcement investigator for the Tampa field office of the Division. Mr. Fisher's immediate supervisor is Reuben Espinola. Mr. Fisher's duties involve investigation of liquor license applicants and related premises to ascertain whether the application should be recommended for approval or not. He does not investigate applications independently, but rather acts on Mr. Espinola's instructions. Mr. Espinola normally does not instruct him as to the scope of his investigation (contrary to policy as stated by their superior, Mr. Schoenfeld). In any event, Mr. Espinola ordered Mr. Fisher to investigate the Ida Know, Inc. application without giving him specific instructions. Mr. Fisher was not present at the meetings between the applicant and Mr. Espinola and other members of the staff in the Tampa field office when the application was first submitted and accepted as complete. Mr. Fisher traveled to Mr. Sasser's establishment to investigate the application, and conferred with Mr. Sasser for approximately 75 minutes on January 29, 1985, which meeting constituted the entirety of his investigation of this application, although he had acknowledged that such application investigations normally require one to three months so as to discover as many facts as possible to completely and fairly conduct the review. The next day, however, Mr. Fisher recommended to his superiors that the application be denied after his single conversation with Mr. Sasser. No further investigation by the Tampa field office was performed. Mr. Fisher never conversed with the applicant nor Mr. Bartlett during the investigation or at any other time, nor did he communicate in writing with them, although he acknowledged that conversing with applicants concerning matters involved in investigation of an application is common practice. Mr. Fisher had not read the Division's policy and procedures manual in its entirety. He exhibited some unfamiliarity with Division policy, as for example, his belief that Division policy does not allow issuance of a liquor license for premises where the zoning does not authorize both on-premises consumption and package store sales for off-premises consumption. Mr. Schoenfeld acknowledged that Mr. Fisher misunderstood the pertinent Division policies regarding this liquor license application and the review of it, and yet Mr. Schoenfeld's denial of the application was based entirely on the investigation performed by the Tampa field office and specifically Mr. Fisher. Mr. Schoenfeld did not conduct any independent investigation of his own and never conferred with either Mr. Sasser, the Applicant, Ms. Bartlett, or Mr. Bartlett. His conclusion, and Mr. Fisher's conclusion that no right of occupancy of the Sasser premises existed was evidently based on the Division's Exhibit No. 3, which was not admitted into evidence. In any event, if indeed Mr. Sasser was seeking to recant his agreements with the Applicant and that fact was within the knowledge of Mr. Fisher or someone else in the Tampa field office or the Tallahassee office of the Division, no Division staff member ever contacted the Applicant to advise them of that purported situation, nor to seek additional information from the Applicant concerning it. Even if Mr. Sasser could successfully repudiate his agreement to escrow his liquor license and his agreement to allow the Applicant to use his premises, the Applicant has successfully established its right of occupancy and use of the alternative premises depicted and described in Applicant's Exhibit 8, however, which is zoned commercially such that on-premises consumption of any alcoholic beverage is permitted.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, as well as the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the application of Ida Know, Inc. d/b/a The Anchorage, be approved and that the subject 4-COP quota liquor license be issued to that applicant in a manner consistent with the conditions and alternatives posited in the paragraph last above. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of April, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April 1986.
