The Issue Pursuant to a Notice to Show Cause issued November 22, 1982, the Respondent was charged with two violations of the beverage laws of this state. Respondent was charged with allowing a person under 19 years of age to consume alcoholic beverages on her licensed premises. Respondent was also charged with continuing to sell alcoholic beverages after discontinuing the sale of full course meals in violation of Florida Statute 561.20(3)(1981) and Rule 7A-3.15, Florida Administrative Code. At the formal hearing, Petitioner called as witnesses Mr. W. R. Wiggs, a beverage officer for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco; Mr. James Pistole, a deputy for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department; and Joe Circhirillo, also a deputy for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department. Respondent testified on her own behalf and called as witnesses Kathryn Singer, James D. DeBusk, and Heidi Buzbee. Petitioner offered no exhibits and Respondent offered and had admitted into evidence one exhibit consisting of four photographs. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the undersigned Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are not adopted herein, they were considered and determined by the Hearing Officer to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent held Beverage License No. 39- 00771, SRX Series 4-COP, issued to Sharon's Surf-n-Turf, located at 111 East Shell Point Road, Ruskin, Florida. During the course of the hearing, it was stipulated by and between the parties and it is now found that the beverage referred to in Count I of the administrative complaint was an alcoholic beverage. On October 29, 1982, W. R. Wiggs, an investigator for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, went to the licensed premises of Sharon's Surf- n-Turf Restaurant and Lounge. He arrived at approximately 9:30 p.m. and the lounge area was full of patrons. Before entering the licensed premises, Investigator Wiggs observed a sign outside the restaurant which reflected that the restaurant was open from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and there was live entertainment from 9:30 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. Beverage Officer Wiggs was accompanied by Beverage Officer Miller. Upon entering the licensed premises, Wiggs and Miller sat at the bar and each ordered a Michelob beer. Beverage Officer Miller asked if he could order a full course meal and the bartender responded that the kitchen was closed. Beverage Officers Miller and Wiggs were in the licensed premises approximately one and one-half hour and observed no food being served. The patrons in the lounge were consuming alcoholic beverages. The lights were not on in the restaurant portion of the licensed premises, and the door to the restaurant was locked. Neither Officer Wiggs nor Officer Miller checked the kitchen to determine if it was in fact closed. While in the licensed premises, Officer Wiggs, along with Deputy James Pistole, of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department, observed a young lady named Tammy Almond, sitting at one of-the tables and consuming an alcoholic beverage. She appeared to be younger than 19 years of age. After arresting Ms. Almond, it was determined from her driver's license that she was, in fact, 18 years of age, having a date of birth of March 28, 1964. When Officer Wiggs and Deputy Pistole arrested Ms. Almond, she stated that the drink which was seized belong to someone else and she was sipping out of it. There was no evidence that Tammy Almond had purchased the drink or that she had been personally served the drink. At the time Tammy Almond was arrested, all other persons in the lounge who appeared to be possibly underage were asked for identification. Tammy Almond was the only minor in the licensed premises that evening. Tammy Almond had previously been married and was now divorced. The Respondent and her employees were aware of her prior marriage. On this evening, James D. DeBusk was checking identification at the door to the licensed premises. He had checked Tammy Almond's identification and it had reflected that she was two or three months over 19 years of age. The identification appeared to be a Florida driver's license. There was nothing suspicious about the identification. The licensed premises always has a doorman checking identification on Wednesday night through Saturday night. The bartenders and waitresses would also check identification of patrons. The licensed premises is divided into a restaurant/ dining room area and a lounge. The lounge has tables, chairs, a dance floor, and bandstand. Food is served in the dining room area as well as the lounge area. Menus for food are posted on the wall just inside the doorway of the lounge. The Respondent, prior to and at the time of the incident involving Tammy Almond, had a strict policy against allowing minors to consume alcoholic beverages on the licensed premises. On the nights when the lounge is busiest, Wednesday through Saturday, a doorman is on duty to check the identification of persons entering the lounge. Waitresses and bartenders were instructed to check the identification of persons who appeared to be younger than 19 years of age. The Respondent's policy was to require two acceptable forms of identification whenever a person produces or shows a questionable identification. If they cannot produce such identification, they are not permitted to enter the licensed premises. The restaurant and lounge are managed and supervised by the Respondent. At the time of Tammy Almond's arrest, the Respondent was in the kitchen area of the licensed premises training a new cook. Food is served at the Respondent's licensed premises from 11:00 a.m. to closing time. On the evening of October 29, 1982, the kitchen was open and food was actually ordered. At least four meals of steak and eggs were ordered and served after midnight. The licensed premises is primarily a restaurant operation and serves several different types of full course meals. These full course meals were available on the evening of October 29, 1982.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found not guilty of the violations charged in the Notice to Show Cause and that such Notice to Show Cause be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 27th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul S. Carr, Esquire Post Office Box 965 Ruskin, Florida 33570 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. 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.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Action and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Natural James Supper Club Catering, located at 4322 North State Road 7, Lauderdale Lakes, Florida, held a catering license issued by DABT. The license number is number BEV 1616571, Series 13CT. This license authorized Natural James Supper Club Catering to provide catering services at its premise's location. Natural James Supper Club Catering is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of DABT as a result of having been issued such a license by DABT. At all times material hereto, the sole owner of Natural James Supper Club Catering was Larnieve Uter. On March 24, 2003, having received a complaint that Natural James Supper Club Catering was selling alcoholic beverages in a manner not permitted by its license, DABT initiated an investigation. On March 24, 2003, Captain Patrick Roberts and special agents of DABT entered the premises of Natural James Supper Club Catering. Accompanied by the husband of Mrs. Uter, Glasford Uter, Captain Roberts and the other agents observed alcoholic beverages that had been used at a prior catering event being stored at Natural James Supper Club Catering; observed alcoholic beverages at Natural James Supper Club Catering that did not have excise tax stamps on them; and observed for sale a bottle of an alcoholic beverage that had been refilled with an unknown spirituous beverage. As to the storing of alcoholic beverages, according to Captain Roberts, the license held by Natural James Supper Club Catering prohibits it from storing alcoholic beverages that were used in a prior catering event. Instead, Natural James Supper Club must return the alcoholic beverages to the vendor from whom they were purchased. Further, Natural James Supper Club must possess a contract between it and the vendor; however, no such contract was presented to Captain Roberts or any of the other agents. DABT seized the alcoholic beverages and took pictures of them. DABT seized 191 bottles of wine, 118 containers of spirits, and 959 containers of beer (cans and bottles).
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: Finding Uter Investment Corp., d/b/a Natural James Supper Club Catering in violation of Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2001), through violating Sections 562.12(1), 562.01, and 565.11, Florida Statutes (2001). Imposing a fine of $2,500 and excise tax upon Uter Investment Corp., d/b/a Natural James Supper Club Catering. Suspending, for a 20-day period, the license of Uter Investment Corp., d/b/a Natural James Supper Club Catering. Imposing a forfeiture of the seized alcoholic beverages. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 4th day of August, 2004.
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(2)(a)2., and its directive that the square footage making up the licensed premises of a special restaurant (SRX) license be “contiguous,” constitutes a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, and, if so, whether Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Adjudication should be denied.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of facts are determined: The State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Respondent) is the state agency responsible for adopting the existing rule which is the subject of this proceeding. Under the provisions of Section 561.02, Florida Statutes, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, is charged with the supervision and enforcement of all alcoholic beverages manufactured, packaged, distributed and sold within the state under the Beverage Law. The Division issues both general and special alcoholic beverage licenses. Petitioner, Brooklyn Luncheonette, LLC, d/b/a Del Tura Pub and Restaurant is the owner/operator of a restaurant located in North Fort Myers, Florida. It is seeking issuance of a special restaurant license (SRX) pursuant to Subsection 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes, from the Division. Therefore, Petitioner is substantially affected by the challenged rule. Petitioner operates a restaurant on a leased parcel of property consisting of two buildings with a dedicated pathway between the two buildings. Petitioner’s restaurant premises consist of two buildings which contain a minimum of 2,500 square feet in the aggregate of service area. Petitioner’s restaurant facility is equipped to serve 150 patrons full course meals at tables at one time. The sole reason asserted by Respondent for denial of Petitioner’s application is the alleged noncompliance with the “contiguous” requirement of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(2)(a)2. The provision of general law, applicable to Petitioner, which sets forth the specific criteria for an SRX license, is Subsection 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes. To these statutory criteria, Respondent has, by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(2)(a)2., added an additional criteria: “The required square footage shall be contiguous and under the management and control of a single establishment.” Respondent has interpreted the provision to mean that the buildings containing the square footage must physically touch. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141 reflects that the sole law implemented is Subsection 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes. Susan Doherty is the chief of Respondent’s Bureau of Licensing, whose duties include determining “if a license will be issued based upon the qualifications of the applicant [and] whether the premises meets all requirements based on the type of license applied for.” Ms. Doherty, whose deposition was taken on May 12, 2009, testified in pertinent part: Q. All right. If I can direct your attention to Subsection (2)(a)(2) of Rule 61A-3.0141, it says, “The required square footage shall be contiguous and under the management and control of a single licensed restaurant establishment.” What does “contiguous” mean? A. Touching, actually connected, touching. * * * Q. Do you see anything in the statute that prohibits a licensee from qualifying if the square footage is in two buildings that the applicant leases and they’re connected by a pathway which the applicant leases? Do you see anything in the statute that precludes that? A. In the statute, no. Q. Do you see anything in the rule that precludes that? A. In my opinion, Section (2)(a)(2), the contiguous would. Deposition of S. Doherty, pp. 15 and 18. Chief Doherty conceded, however, that she could not point to any provision of the relevant statute that imposes a “contiguous” requirement regarding the square footage. Chief Doherty further noted that for special licenses issued for hotels pursuant to Subsection 561.20(2)(a)1., Florida Statutes, she was aware that there were numerous non-contiguous buildings licensed pursuant to such section. The deposition of Respondent’s agency representative, Major Carol Owsiany, was taken on May 13, 2009. Major Owsiany testified: Q. . . . Isn’t it correct that there’s 2,500 square feet of service area located in the two buildings that are currently the subject of the [Petitioner’s] temporary SRX license? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you point to me any provision of Section 561.20(2)(1)(4) that precludes the petitioner from having the requisite square footage in two buildings? A. One second, sir. Not in the statute, but I can in the rule. Deposition of C. Owsiany, p. 8. For purposes of this rule challenge case, there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is responsible for administering Florida laws respecting the sale of alcoholic beverages. Sales of alcoholic beverages are regulated in Florida through a licensing system. "Liquor" licenses authorize licensees to sell alcoholic beverages without regard to alcoholic content. Various categories of liquor licenses are issued by the Respondent. The two categories most pertinent to this proceeding are "quota" licenses and "restaurant" licenses. Quota licenses are available on the basis of one license per 2,500 in population for each county which permits such licenses (Some counties have different quotas established by Special Acts of the Legislature.). The term "quota" is derived from the fact that the issuing formula is based upon the decennial Federal census, and thus only a finite number of licenses are available. Section 561.20(1), Florida Statutes. Restaurant licenses are an exception to the quota scheme and are not limited in number. They are available to "any restaurant having 2,500 square feet of service area and equipped to serve 150 persons full-course meals at one time, and deriving at least 51 percent of its gross revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages." Section 561.20(2)(a)3, Florida Statutes. There are approximately 3,000 outstanding quota licenses, and 2,000 outstanding restaurant licenses. Depending upon the specific terms of the license, quota license holders are authorized to sell liquor for off premises consumption. These are called "package" sales. Prior to the adoption of the amendment to Rule 7A-3.16, restaurant licenses issued after January 1, 1958, did not authorize package sales. Prior to the adoption of the amendment, the rule Provided: No licensee holding a special restaurant license issued after January 1, 1958, may sell alcoholic beverages for off premises consumption other than as may be Provided by special act. The prefix "SRX" shall be made a part of the license numbers of all special restaurant licenses issued after January 1, 1958, distinguishing them in identity from other licenses. The amendment which is the subject of this proceeding deleted the underlined portion of the rule. The effect of the amendment is to permit holders of restaurant licenses to make package sales so long as other criteria pertaining to the licenses are met. The Petitioner is a publicly owned Florida corporation which does business in Florida and five other states. Petitioner is engaged in the business of selling alcoholic beverages for on and off premises consumption. The majority of its business activities are in Florida, and Florida package sales represent more than half of the Petitioner's total business volume nationwide. The Petitioner holds forty-tow quota licenses issued by the Respondent. Quota licenses are transferable; and since they are limited in number, their market value frequently far exceeds the fees imposed by the Respondent. The market value of quota licenses held by the Petitioner in Dade and Broward Counties, Florida, is nearly two million dollars. The Petitioner's business is a very competitive one. When the petitioner is considering whether to invest in a new location, numerous factors are considered. These include demographics, traffic patterns, population, zoning, and the number and location of competitors. The number and location of competitors is the single most important factor. Since package sales constitute a majority of the Petitioner's business volume, the proximity of competitors who offer package sales is paramount. Because under the Respondent's rules restaurant licensees have been prohibited from making package sales, the location of restaurant licensees has not been of concern to the petitioner in determining where to locate. The Petitioner may have made different judgments about numerous of its locations if nearby restaurants were able to make package sales in competition with the Petitioner. No specific evidence was introduced from which it could be determined which if any of the Petitioner's locations would not have been opened, or which will suffer a competitive disadvantage as a result of the amendment to Rule 7A-3.16. Indeed, implementation of the amendment to the rule has been stayed by the courts, and no determination can be made as to which restaurant licensees might avail themselves of the opportunity of making package sales, and to what extent. The market value of the Petitioner's quota licenses and competition for the Petitioner's business outlets are affected by licensing considerations apart from whether restaurant licensees will be permitted to make package sales. As a result of the 1980 Federal census, numerous new quota licenses will be available in Dade and Broward Counties. These additional licenses, when issued, could have a substantial impact upon the value of the Petitioner's licenses, and the competitive advantages of the Petitioner's business locations. The Intervenor is the holder of a restaurant license issued by the Respondent. The amendment to Rule 7A-3.16 would permit the Intervenor to make package sales of alcoholic beverages. The economic impact statement adopted by the Respondent in support of its amendment to Rule 7A-3.16 provides in pertinent part as fellows: This rule will likely stimulate competition in the market place by permitting more outlets for off premises sale of alcoholic beverages. There would be no appreciable impact upon the state's revenue, but should there be any impact it is estimated that more liquor would be sold rather than less. Competition upon existing package stores would be in proportion to the proximity and competitive power of special restaurants permitted to sell by the package. In developing this statement, various officials within the Respondent met on several occasions to discuss the potential economic impact of the amendment to the rule, and representatives of the regulated industry were consulted. Hearings were conducted by the Respondent before the amendment was adopted. Representatives of the industry, including a representative of the Petitioner, appeared at hearings and stated their positions with respect to the amendment. The economic impact statement accurately portrays the potential economic impact of the amendment. It does not appear that the effect of competition upon existing package stores can be estimated with any precision. Indeed, the Petitioner did not present evidence and could not present evidence with respect to the precise impact that the amendment would have upon any of its locations.
The Issue Does Petitioner, Target Corporation (Target), have standing to bring this rule challenge? Does Petitioner, Walmart, Inc. (Walmart), have standing to bring this rule challenge? Does Intervenor, ABC Fine Wine & Spirits (ABC), have standing to participate in this rule challenge? Does Intervenor, Florida Independent Spirits Association (Independent Spirits), have standing to participate in this rule challenge? Does Intervenor, Publix Supermarkets (Publix), have standing to participate in this rule challenge? Is Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.055 (Restaurant Rule or the rule) an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2018)?1/
Findings Of Fact The Legislature has charged the Division with administration of Florida’s alcoholic beverage and tobacco laws. This charge includes licensing and regulation, as well as enforcement of the governing laws and rules. The Division promulgated rule 61A-3.055 in 1994. It has not been amended since. The rule states: 61A-3.055 Items Customarily Sold in a Restaurant. As used in Section 565.045, F.S., items customarily sold in a restaurant shall only include the following: Ready to eat appetizer items; or Ready to eat salad items; or Ready to eat entree items; or Ready to eat vegetable items; or Ready to eat dessert items; or Ready to eat fruit items; or Hot or cold beverages. A licensee may petition the division for permission to sell products other than those listed, provided the licensee can show the item is customarily sold in a restaurant. This petition shall be submitted to the director of the division at Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 2601 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1020, and must be approved prior to selling or offering the item for sale. For the purpose of consumption on premises regulations set forth in Section 565.045, F.S., items customarily sold in a restaurant shall include services or sales authorized in the “Florida Public Lottery Act”, Section 24.122(4), F.S. The effect of the rule is that any vendor with a license to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on premises (COP) may not sell any items other than those listed in subsection (1) unless individually authorized to sell specific items by the Division.2/ Rule 61A-3.055 identifies section 565.045, as the law that it implements. The Restaurant Rule regulates all establishments holding a COP license. Topgolf operates four COP licensed establishments in Florida. Every Topgolf venue features dozens of high-tech, climate-controlled, golf hitting bays, food and beverage choices, and employs a staff of associates to provide patrons with a golf- themed food, beverage, and entertainment experience. The Division has also issued Topgolf a temporary COP license for its location at Topgolf Doral, 11850 Northwest 22nd Street, Miami, Florida 33182. On July 31, 2018, the Division inspected Topgolf Doral as part of the licensing process for issuance of the permanent liquor license. The Division’s Inspection Report notes that the Topgolf Doral (Doral) location may be in violation of section 565.045, because it offers items for sale other than those enumerated in rule 61A-3.055. The items offered include Topgolf-branded and/or golf-themed T-shirts, caps, visors, golf balls, cups, key chains, gloves and other trinkets. All of Topgolf’s Florida locations sell items similar to those sold in its Doral location. In addition to possible denial of its Doral application, Topgolf faces potential administrative and/or criminal penalties for the purported violation of the Restaurant Rule at each of its Florida locations. Topgolf has also petitioned the Division for permission to sell products other than those listed in rule 61A-3.055(1). Walmart operates a chain of retail stores, warehouse clubs, and ecommerce websites. It operates almost 400 locations in Florida. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services licenses Walmart’s retail locations in Florida as food establishments. Walmart seeks to obtain, but has not yet applied for, COP licenses for some of its Florida retail locations. ABC is a retailer of alcoholic beverages in Florida. It operates a number of establishments that hold COP licenses. It holds 26 COP licenses. Rule 61A-3.055 applies to ABC’s operation of its licensed establishments. Independent Spirits is an independent association of alcoholic beverage retailers holding COP licenses. It exists to represent the interests of its members before the Division, in the Legislature, and otherwise. ABC is an Independent Spirits member. Including ABC, Independent Spirits members hold 61 COP licenses. Publix is a supermarket chain. It also operates a number of liquor stores throughout the state. Publix holds a number of COP licenses (beer and wine only). Publix relied on the requirements of statute and rule (including section 565.045 and the Restaurant Rule) in crafting its liquor-related business plans and building its separate liquor stores. Division inspections of licensed vendors include examination for violations of the Restaurant Rule. Since June 28, 2010, the Division has issued 14 notices of violation of the Restaurant Rule. The record does not establish what, if any, further action, such as fines or license revocation, that the Division has taken. The Division recently denied an application by Costco for a COP license for failure to comply with the Restaurant Rule. This is the only known instance of the Division denying a license application for failure to comply with the rule. Restaurants customarily sell items other than those listed in the Restaurant Rule. At a minimum, they sell T-Shirts and branded souvenir items. The Division adopted the Restaurant Rule in 1994. The review from the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee at the time included this observation: “Absent explanatory criteria, use of the word ‘customarily’ vests unbridled discretion in the department.” The Division responded: “As mentioned in our meeting, all of Proposed Rule 61A-3.055 is, in itself, the division’s attempt to define the admittedly vague phrase ‘items customarily sold in a restaurant’, as used in s. 565.045.” The Division is presently conducting rulemaking proceedings to consider amending the Restaurant Rule.
