The Issue Whether respondent's special restaurant alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined or a civil penalty imposed, for failure to comply with special restaurant operation requirements contained in Section 561.20, Florida Statutes (1981) and Rule 7A-3.15, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On March 12, 1981, DABT issued respondent a special restaurant alcoholic beverage license, No. 23-4626 SRX, Series 4 COP. (P-2, P-3.) Under the authority of this license, petitioner operates a business ("the licensed premises") at 49 Northwest Fifth Street, Miami, Florida, which serves food and beverages (alcoholic and nonalcoholic) to the general public. (Testimony of Saric; P-2, P-3.) II. At 2:30 p.m. on April 28, 1981, Beverage Agents Patricia Geyer and Patrick Roberts entered the licensed premises and found it closed. Jim Novak, the manager, took them on a tour of the premises. On the first floor, tables and chairs had not been set up. A large wooden dance floor had just been waxed, and an unknown number of tables and chairs were folded and stacked in the adjacent patio area. The kitchen equipment was not in use; shipping tape was attached to the stove dodrs; the dishwasher contained glasses and plates which were covered with dust. On a shelf next to the dishwasher were approximately 150 plates, cups, and saucers, also covered with dust. No silverware was found. The kitchen cooler contained 15 cases of beer and no food. The mezzanine level had ten tables with chairs set up to accommodate 30 people. The second floor contained business offices and a storage room containing wine and old-fashioned glasses and 15 cans of soup. (Testimony of Geyer, Roberts.) Agent Geyer asked Mr. Novak for a menu and was told there was none. He told them that the licensed premises served food catered by the Affaire Restaurant. (Testimony of Geyer.) At 9:30 p.m. on May 6, 1981, Beverage Agent Geyer, accompanied by another agent, arrived at the licensed premises and found it closed. They returned at 10:20 p.m. and, in an undercover capacity, were admitted to the premises after paying a $3 cover charge. They sat in the bar area and ordered alcoholic beverages. Few people were on the premises at the time. The large dance floor was in use; approximately 15-20 tables were set up in the patio area. The agents observed the kitchen area and saw no one enter or leave; neither did they see any patrons eating or being served food. At 11:30 p.m., they went upstairs to the mezzanine area, sat at a table, and asked for a menu. They were handed a menu which listed a single full-course dinner, named the "Grand Prix," for $25. Agent Geyer did not order the meal because of its expense; at the time, she believed that if she had ordered it, she would have been served the meal. Agent Geyer remained on the premises until after midnight but never saw any food being served or consumed or tables set with silverware and dinnerware. There were approximately 200 people on the premises when she exited. (Testimony of Geyer.) At 11:00 p.m. on August 5, 1981, Agent Geyer, accompanied by another agent, returned to the premises for a final inspection. The manager showed them the kitchen area where the stove still had shipping tape attached to it; there were no indications that food was being prepared or served. On the first floor no tables were set up in the dance floor area; tables were, however, set up in the patio area, and a smoking grill was observed. The agents did not check the mezzanine area. They observed 15-25 patrons on the premises that evening. (Testimony of Geyer.) III. Between April and August, 1981, full-course Sunday buffets were served on the premises by the Affaire Restaurant, a caterer under contract with respondent. Some of the food was prepared in advance, some was prepared using the convection oven on the premises. The Sunday buffets were adequate to serve 300 patrons and usually included two entrees, salads and desserts. Beverages were provided by respondent. Plastic plates and utensils were used to minimize cleanup. Silverware was available in the kitchen, but the caterer never used it. (Testimony of Saric.) Between April, 1980, and March, 1981--when respondent received its beverage license--respondent Spent approximately $31,000 on kitchen equipment, dishes, silverware, tables, chairs, and glassware for the licensed premises. Included were at least 88 tables and 175 chairs. (R-1.) During March, April, and May, 1981, the percentage of gross revenue derived from the sale of food and alcoholic beverages on the premises was as follows: FOOD PERCENTAGE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES PERCENTAGE March 16 84 April 28 72 May 32 68 (Stipulation of Parties.) No beverage agent counted the total number of chairs and tables on the premises, including those chairs and tables which were available to be set up.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the notice to show cause, dated August 28, 1981, as amended, and the charges contained therein, be dismissed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 24th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1982.
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 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 Whether the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco is estopped from denying petitioner's application for a transfer of a special restaurant license.
Findings Of Fact In December, 1981, Applicant applied for transfer of alcoholic beverage license no. 23-02433, 4-COP SRX, a special restaurant license held by Charlies the Lakes Restaurant, Inc. & Willman Co.. DABT denied the application, contending that the licensed premises did not meet minimum seating or square footage requirements. (P-1, letter of denial dated April 8, 1982). The licensed premises, known as the Lakeside Cafe, is located at 6125 Miami Lakes Drive, Miami Lake percent, Florida. It has less than 4,000 square feet of service area and is able to seat less than 200 patrons at tables. (P-1, R-1 Stipulation of counsel) Applicant contends that since DABT granted a special restaurant license (4 COP-SRX) to the present and previous licensees, it is now estopped to deny the application. Although DABT has continuously granted such a license, license applicants have twice filed affidavits indicating that the licensed premises meets square footage and seating requirements. In 1976 and 1980 two separate applicants filed sworn affidavits stating that the licensed premises occupied 4,000 or more square feet of floor space and could accommodate 200 or more patrons at tables. On November 17, 1981, Applicant signed an agreement to purchase the licensed premises from the present licensee for $210,000.00. Under that agreement, the present licensee was required to transfer its interest in the beverage license to applicant. (P-3)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Applicant's application to transfer license No. 23-02433, 4-COP SRX, be DENIED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 1982.
The Issue Whether Petitioner may discipline Respondent’s alcoholic beverage license for Respondent’s violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(D) and Section 561.20(4) “within” 561.29(1)(a),1/ Florida Statutes, on three separate occasions.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to un-refuted testimony, Respondent, MJT Restaurant Group, Inc., doing business as The Copper Pot, holds Beverage License 5202697, Series 4 COP, SRX.3/ Respondent’s establishment is located in Ocala, Florida. It is divided into two separate interior rooms, with two separate exterior entrances. The two rooms are connected through the interior by a single opening between one room, which is the main restaurant area, and a second room, which is the bar/lounge. A complaint was opened against Respondent with a warning letter issued by Investigative Specialist Melodi Brewton on March 15, 2007. The Administrative Complaint that was ultimately filed in this case addresses only the dates of April 7, 2007, June 17, 2007, and July 20, 2007. On April 7, 2007, Special Agents Angel Rosado and Lawrence Perez visited Respondent’s premises in an undercover capacity at approximately 11:00 p.m. On that date, the restaurant’s exterior door was closed and locked, but the lounge’s exterior door was open. The agents entered through the lounge’s exterior door and observed patrons consuming alcohol and listening to a band in the bar area. The agents requested a menu from the bartender. The bartender told them the kitchen was closed. Each agent then ordered a beer, and a sealed alcoholic beer bottle was sold to each of them as alcoholic beer. Each agent was over 21 years of age, familiar with the smell and taste of alcohol, and testified that the liquid inside his container had been alcoholic beer. The agents testified that they had paid for, and received, the liquid as if it were alcoholic beer. A chain of custody was maintained and a sample vial of the beer served by Respondent on Tuesday, April 7, 2007, was brought to the hearing but was not admitted into evidence as unduly repetitious and cumbersome.4/ On June 16, 2007, Special Agent Rosado and Special Agent Lawrence Perez visited The Copper Pot at approximately 11:30 p.m. The outside restaurant door was not locked, but the lights were off inside the restaurant room where chairs were stacked on the tables. The agents observed patrons in the lounge room consuming alcohol. When the agents asked for a menu, the male bartender told them that the kitchen was closed. The bartender offered to heat up some spinach dip for them, but they declined. Each agent then ordered an alcoholic beer, and a liquid was sold to each of them as alcoholic beer. Each agent was over 21 years of age, familiar with the smell and taste of alcohol, and testified that the liquid sold him was alcoholic beer. Each agent testified that he had paid for, and received, the liquid as if it were alcoholic beer. A sample of the alcoholic beer was logged into the Agency evidence room on June 17, 2007. That sample of the beer served by Respondent on June 16, 2007, was brought to the hearing but was not admitted into evidence as unduly repetitious and cumbersome.5/ During the June 16-17, 2007, visit, Agent Perez spoke with a woman who was later determined to be one of the corporate officers of the licensee, Judith Vallejo. When Agent Perez asked her about obtaining a meal, Judith Vallejo replied that the kitchen was closed, but they could get food at the nearby Steak’N’Shake. The male bartender then told the agents that the Respondent’s restaurant closes at 9:00 p.m. weekdays and 10:00 p.m. on weekends. June 16, 2007, was a Saturday. June 17, 2007, was a Sunday. At about 11:00 p.m. on July 20, 2007, Special Agents James DeLoach, Ernest Wilson, and Angela Francis entered Respondent licensee’s premises through the lounge. The restaurant’s outside entrance was locked and the restaurant was dark. In the lounge, they asked for a menu to order a meal. The male bartender told them that the kitchen was closed, but they could have a spinach dip. The agents ordered, and were served, one beer and two mixed drinks, which Special Agents DeLoach and Wilson testified had alcohol in them. Special Agent Francis did not testify. Both of the special agents who testified were over 21 years of age, familiar with the taste and smell of alcohol, identified that the liquids they had been served were, in fact, alcoholic beverages, and that they had bought and paid for what the bartender served them as alcoholic beverages as if they were alcoholic beverages. Each testified that the bartender had represented that what he was serving them were the alcoholic beverages they had ordered. A sample vial of only the beer served by Respondent to Special Agent Wilson on July 20, 2007, was brought to the hearing, but it was not admitted into evidence as unduly repetitious and cumbersome.6/ Thereafter, a notice of intent to file charges was served upon one of Respondent’s corporate officers. There was testimony from a Special Agent that an SRX licensee is required to earn fifty per cent of its gross income from the sale of food and must sell food which is the equivalent of a full course meal during the entire time alcohol is being served, and that the Administrative Complaint herein should have cited Section 561.20(1) instead of 561.20(4), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing all statutory charges; finding Respondent guilty, under each of the three counts of the Administrative Complaint, of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(d); and for the rule violations, fining Respondent $1,000.00, and revoking Respondent's license without prejudice to Respondent's obtaining any type of license, but with prejudice to Respondent's obtaining the same type of special license for five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 March, 2008.
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 At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Boston's, Inc., was the holder of Beverage License No. 53-123, Series 6-COP SR. This license is issued to the premises known as Boston's, located at 100 Monterey Road, Stuart, Florida. The license held by Respondent is a Special Restaurant License originally issued in August 1957 to Frank and Mary Novacasa. By transfer of the license, Boston's, Inc., became the licensee on December 4, 1981. At the time of this transfer of the license to the Respondent, its president, A. Gerard Beauchamp, acknowledged by notarized Affidavit that the license required accommodations for serving 200 or more patrons at tables at all times. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). On February 22, 1983, Beverage Officers White and Young conducted a routine inspection of the licensed premises. The officers discovered that the premises had been remodeled and that a new bar had been added, thereby reducing the available seating. By count, only 121 seats were available at tables, with an additional 18 to 20 stools being available at the bar. The manager on the premises also advised that an additional 10 to 15 chairs were located in a storage shed. On February 23, 1983, Beverage Officer White issued an official notice to the Respondent advising that it was required to maintain seating capacity at tables for 200 or more patrons. A compliance date of April 13, 1983, was indicated. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Officers White and Young conducted a compliance inspection on June 7, 1983. The physical layout of the premises remained as it had been on the earlier visit. A count of the seats available at tables revealed 114 chairs. An additional 24 stools were placed at the bar. At that time, Officer White issued an official notice to the Respondent, which was signed for by the manager, Norm Spector. That notice advised Respondent that the Division intended to file administrative charges against its license. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking Respondent's Special Restaurant License No. 53-123, Series 6-COP SR. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 2nd day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Shumaker, Esquire 1775 NE Fifth Avenue Boca Raton, Florida 33432 J. Reeve Bright, Esquire Florida Coast Bank Building, Suite 500 551 SE Eighth Street Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Gary R Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard N. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not on or about August 28, 1974, at the Respondent's licensed premises, the Respondent continued the sale of alcoholic beverages when the services of full-course meals had been discontinued, in violation of Rule 7A-3.15, F.A.C. Whether or not on or about August 28, 1974, at the Respondent's licensed premises, the Respondent's business was not advertised and held out to the public to be a place where meals are prepared and served, space being provided with adequate kitchen and dining room equipment and having employed such number and kind of employees for preparing, cooking and serving meals for guests; the primary operation of the Respondent's restaurant was not for the preparation, cooking and serving of meals but for the sale of alcoholic beverages, in violation of Rule 7A-3.15d, F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, NAS, INC., d/b/a The Down Beat, is the holder of license number 16-692-SR, Series 4-COP, held with the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. This license is for a premises located at 623 N.W. 15th Way, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On August 28, 1974, beverage agents Scozzafava and Fay entered the licensed premises around 10:30 a.m. They identified themselves to the manager, one George Myers, and commenced a routine inspection of the licensed premises. The business was identified by a sign on the outside of the building which stated that the licensed premises sold liquor and food. The licensed premises was divided into two principal areas; one being a lounge and the second being a dining room. The lounge was open and serving alcoholic beverages, together with snack-type food such as potato chips, sausages, peanuts, and "pigsfeet." The witness that testified for the Petitioner could not recall whether other food items were being sold in the lounge area. However, the testimony did show that the manager, George Myers, had to unlock the kitchen and dining room areas. There were no patrons located in the dining room. An inspection of the kitchen revealed a number of paper plates and cups and a few pieces of china ware. In addition, in the kitchen, there was found a number of items of silverware, which while adequate in number, but were tarnished and rusted. In the kitchen area there was no evidence of full-course meals being prepared. Moreover, there were no records of any sales of food on August 28, 1974. The dining room did have sufficient chairs and tables to meet the terms of requirements of the Petitioner. One of the counts in question found in the Notice to Show Cause charges the Respondent with a violation of Rule 7A-3.15, F.A.C. The pertinent provisions of that rule state: "Special licenses, hours of service and minimum requirements. All restaurants holding a special license, in addition to the quota limitation imposed by section 561.20(1), Florida Statutes, must discontinue the sale of alcoholic beverages whenever the service of full-course meals is discontinued. . . . The Division considers the following as the minimum requirements for bona fide full-course meals prepared. Salad Entree Dessert Beverage Bread and Butter." The facts in this case show that at approximately 10:30 a.m., August 28, 1974, alcoholic beverages were being sold in the licensed premises, at a time when the service of full-course meals had been discontinued. Because the license held by the Respondent is a special restaurant's license within the meaning of the rule, the facts establish a violation of the rule provision. The Notice to Show Cause filed against the Respondent also contained a count pertaining to an alleged violation of Rule 7A-3.15d, F.A.C. That provision states: "... The following criteria will be used in determining whether or not the holder of a specified restaurant license is a bona fide restaurant: d. The business is advertised and held out to the public to be a place where meals are prepared and served, space being provided with adequate kitchen and dining room equip- ment and have employed such number and kinds of employees for preparing, cooking and serving meals; the primary operation of such restaurant shall be for the preparation, cooking and serving of meals and not for the sale of alcoholic beverages." The facts establish that the business was advertised and held out to the public to be a place where meals are prepared and served. The lack of permanent dishware and the poor condition of the silverware establish noncompliance with the requirement of having adequate kitchen and dining room equipment. In addition, on the date in question, it was revealed that there was a failure to comply with the requirement of having employees for preparing, cooking and serving meals for guests. Finally, on the date and time in question, it was shown that the primary purpose of the restaurant was for the sale of alcoholic beverages and not for the preparation, cooking and serving of meals. Therefore, the Respondent had failed to meet one of the criteria necessary to be a bona fide restaurant within the meaning of the laws and rules of the Petitioner. As an aspect of the hearing, the undersigned takes official notice of Rule 7A-3.15, F.A.C.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the violations established in this cause, it is recommended that the Respondent's license number 16-692-SR, Series 4-COP, be suspended for a period of thirty (30) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis E. LaRosa, Esquire Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James A. Brown, Esquire Suite 600-A Courthouse Square Building 200 S. E. 6th Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
