STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 81-2109
)
WILLIAM L. JUHN, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
A hearing was held in the above-captioned matter, after due notice, at Cocoa, Florida, on February 1-4, 1982, before Thomas C. Oldham, Hearing Officer.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Wings Slocum Benton, Esquire
Assistant General Counsel
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: Herbert R. Kanning, Esquire
1500 American Heritage Life Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202
ISSUE
Whether Respondent's license to practice architecture should be suspended or revoked, or the licensee otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Chapter 481, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 21B-12, Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, dated July 22, 1981.
The Complaint herein alleges that Respondent William L. Juhn should be disciplined for negligence, misconduct, and failing to perform legal obligations in the practice of architecture in that he prepared deficient architectural drawings and specifications for a condominium building at Cocoa, Florida in 1980 which contained inconsistencies, were not in conformity with provisions of applicable laws, and did not clearly and accurately protect the user against misunderstanding with regard to the structural design and other essential parts of the work. It further alleges that the Respondent failed to review the work of the structural engineer and coordinate the architectural and structural drawings and specifications. These deficiencies are alleged to have constituted violations of various provisions of Chapter 481, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 21B-12, Florida Administrative Code.
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties submitted a prehearing stipulation (Exhibit 24) wherein Respondent admitted the allegations in paragraphs 1-3 and paragraphs 5-13 of the Administrative Complaint, and agreed that the issues to be tried were those stated in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Complaint.
At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of 13 witnesses and called Respondent as a witness. Respondent testified in his own behalf and presented the testimony of one witness. The parties stipulated to the admission of Exhibits 1-13, and Exhibits 14-25 additionally were received in evidence.
Proposed Recommended Orders filed by the parties have been fully considered, and those portions thereof not adopted herein are considered to be either unnecessary or irrelevant, or unsupported in law or fact.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent William L. Juhn, Cocoa Beach, Florida, received a bachelor's degree in architecture from Ohio State University in 1951, and has been a registered architect in Florida for a period of 19 years. He also holds an inactive general contractor's license in Florida. He received additional design training as a graduate student at the University of Florida for a period of one and one-half years in the early 1960's, and thereafter opened his office in Cocoa Beach. (Testimony of Respondent, Exhibits 1, 24)
For the past ten years, the greater portion of Respondent's work has been in the design of apartment and condominium buildings. For the last five years, Respondent has prepared architectural plans for some twelve projects involving about twenty high-rise buildings, for Univel, Inc., a general contractor in Cocoa Beach. All except one of the buildings were constructed with shear or load-bearing walls as opposed to a structural system calling for "flat plate" slabs and supporting columns. (Testimony of Respondent, Alles)
Respondent's usual contractual arrangement with Univel, Inc. was to prepare preliminary and final architectural drawings, but not to hire other professionals such as structural engineers, mechanical or electrical subcontractors, or to supervise construction. Univel's practice was to separately hire all of such professionals for more expeditious preparation of plans and to coordinate and provide overall supervision of the final product. Univel had used Respondent as an architect and certain other professionals on a continuing basis for a number of projects, and plans on these prior buildings had been substantially similar. It was Respondent's practice under his contracts to prepare architectural plans and drawings and furnish copies to the structural engineer for preparation of structural drawings. Any changes in the type of construction were made by Univel and this information passed back to Respondent and other professionals concerned. (Testimony of Respondent, Alles)
At an undisclosed date, Univel, Inc. was employed by Palm Harbor West to build a condominium project known as "Harbour Cay" in Cocoa Beach. Univel entered into further contractual relations with Dynamic Construction Company headed by Lawrence Stoner in connection with the project. The owner of Palm Harbor West was Towne Realty, and its representative, Jack Bennett, was assigned to the project to deal with contracts, pricing, and schedules. (Testimony of Alles, Bennett, Stoner)
On January 11, 1980, Respondent entered into a contract with Univel wherein he agreed to draw the plans for a five-story, 45-unit, apartment building at Harbour Cay for $4,200. The contract specifically excluded various types of work, including structural, electrical or mechanical engineering, inspection of construction or any involvement in the construction phase of the building. It also provided that conferences with persons other than the representatives of Univel, Inc. were to be excluded from the scope of contractual services, but that the architect would "cooperate with the engineers for the building". Although the contract provided that the plans would be submitted to the "undersigned" for approval as work progressed and on or before each payment request is made, the intent of this provision was relative to the architect's submission of plans to Kenneth Alles, Vice-President of Univel, Inc., rather than submission of other plans to the architect. (Testimony of Respondent, Alles, Exhibit 5)
Pursuant to his contract, Respondent commenced work and exchanged information with Harold Meeler, the structural engineer hired by Univel, frequently during the preparation of the architectural plans and structural drawings. Preliminary drawings provided to Meeler showed the height of the building, wall openings, general arrangement of apartments, and the size of the building "envelope" or overall dimensions of the structure. Prior projects that Respondent and Meeler had worked on involved load-bearing masonry walls for exterior walls and masonry partitions between the apartments. Respondent therefore assumed that the method of structural support for the Harbour Cay building would be the same as had been the case in prior projects, and drew his plans accordingly. (Testimony of Respondent, Meeler, Exhibit 9)
It was the original intent of Univel, Inc. and the owner, Towne Realty, to construct Harbour Cay using a load-bearing masonry structural system. However, soil testing at the site revealed that the ground was not stable enough to support load-bearing walls unless existing soil was removed and fill placed in the area. It was therefore determined by Alles and Bennett that the structural system should consist of a "two-way" flat plate slab and reinforced concrete columns with no shear walls or masonry interior walls. Respondent's drawings had also anticipated that spread footings would be used, but the change in the structural system led to the use of pilings and pile caps as the most suitable foundation method. It was also decided that metal stud unit partition walls would be used to separate the apartments. Meeler was advised of the required changes and he prepared his structural drawings accordingly. The structural drawings were dated August 10, 1980. Meeler submitted them to Respondent for assembly with the architectural plans, and mechanical and electrical drawings. Structural calculations were prepared by A. M. Allen, an engineer hired by Meeler. (Testimony of Respondent, Alles, Meeler, Bennett, Allen, Exhibits 9, 11, 12)
Although not within the scope of his agreement with Univel, Inc., Respondent prepared the mechanical drawings in addition to the architectural drawings at the request of the builder. About the time the plans were completed, Respondent became aware that the structural system had been changed. His only concern at this time was whether the columns would fit within party walls and, after being assured by the structural engineer that they would do so, Respondent did not see the need for changing the architectural drawings since there would be no interference with the fire wall separating apartment units, no interference with plumbing, and no need to rearrange rooms, thereby obviating the need for other than minor changes to the architectural drawings. It was Respondent's intention that the structural changes, as well as any subsequent changes to the original plans would be incorporated into "as built" drawings at
the end of construction. However, no revised architectural drawings were ever received by the Cocoa Beach building department. It is not unusual for frequent changes to be made in building plans as construction progresses, but major changes in structural design which are known by the architect prior to submission of plans for a building permit should be incorporated into the basic architectural design. (Testimony of Respondent, Straub, Washer, Exhibits 9, 25)
Respondent assembled the various plans and drawings and signed and sealed his architectural and mechanical drawings and specifications on September 24, 1980. The structural drawings and calculations were signed and sealed by Meeler on the same day. The building plans were delivered to the building department of Cocoa Beach at an undisclosed date thereafter for preliminary review. The plans were thereafter approved, subject to changes required in a "plan check" issued by the chief building inspector of the department on October 6, 1980. There were eight items listed by the building inspector, three of which related to the architectural drawings, and three relating to the mechanical drawings. Discrepancies on the architectural drawings required recopying of Sheet 8 since dimensions were not clear on that page, and to provide the location of wood and metal external jams which were not shown on the drawings. Also, it was noted that wood storage enclosures on patios must be of fire treated lumber. The noted discrepancies on the mechanical drawings involved plumbing matters and indicated that a "clean out" was required at the base of the waste system on one sheet, that a three-inch waste stack should be changed to a minimum of a four-inch stack as required under the Standard Plumbing Code, Section 1305.1, and that energy cutoff devices on automatically controlled water heaters, as required under Sections 1213.2 and 1209.5 of the Standard Plumbing Code, had not been provided. Respondent's plumbing drawings were unacceptable to the building department unless the noted modifications had been made. However, the plumbing contractor later provided supplemental plumbing drawings which were used for Harbour Cay in lieu of Respondent's plans in that respect.
The plumbing contractor had had similar difficulties on past jobs with plumbing drawings prepared by Respondent.
The building official of Cocoa Beach described Respondent's plans as similar to others that Respondent had prepared, and that the Harbour Cay drawings were an "average set" from which a building could be constructed, but "you would have to know exactly what you were doing." (Testimony of Straub, Hollifield, Haber, Exhibits 8, 13, 14).
On October 28, 1980, Dynamic Construction Company, by Lawrence Stoner, President, applied for a building permit from Cocoa Beach to construct the Harbour Cay condominium. On or about November 1, 1980, Univel, Inc. entered into a contract with Palm Harbor West, Inc., the owner of Harbour Cay, whereby Univel agreed to construct a condominium project to be known as Harbour Cay. On December 5, 1980, the City of Cocoa Beach building department issued Permit No. B5263 authorizing construction of Harbour Cay. At the time the permit was issued, the 1979 edition of the Standard Building Code was in effect in Cocoa Beach, having been adopted by the City on October 18, 1979. (Testimony of Straub, Alles, Exhibits 4, 6, 7, 24).
Construction commenced on the project thereafter and the basic structure had been substantially completed when, on March 27, 1981, the building collapsed, killing eleven persons and injuring approximately twenty-three persons. (Exhibits 10, 24)
Respondent's drawings and specifications for the Harbour Cay building were reviewed in the summer of 1981 by Norman Washer, an architectural consultant employed by Petitioner. He determined that the plans and specifications were deficient and substandard in a number of respects under the requirements of Subsection 481.221(5), Florida Statutes. He further expressed the view that Respondent had provided little more than drafting services since he did not assume the leadership role in the coordination of architectural design, and that such failure was inconsistent with certain terms of his contract with Univel. Thereafter, on July 22, 1981 Petitioner filed its Administrative Complaint against Respondent, alleging various deficiencies and inconsistencies between the architectural drawings and structural drawings, and specifications. However, the specific inconsistencies and deficiencies were not set forth in the Complaint. (Testimony of Washer, Exhibit 17).
The following findings relate to the various deficiencies and inconsistencies which Petitioner sought to establish at the hearing:
Structural System - As heretofore found, major changes were made in the structural system after the architectural drawings had been prepared. Although it is not necessary that architectural drawings reflect minor structural detail, the basic type of framing system should be reflected in such drawings to ensure that the physical dimensions of the structural elements are shown for clarity to users of the plans, that the proper dimensions of structural elements are shown, and that the various parts of the building will fit together. In the case of Harbour Cay, Respondent, once apprised of the structural change, did not modify his architectural drawings to conform with the revised structural design. As a consequence, the plans submitted for permit depicted two different framing systems. Respondent did not show columns on his architectural drawings even though they were a part of the structural framing system. Columns should have been shown in order to make clear whether they would interfere with other elements in the building. His drawings further created confusion by the fact that he had used "shading" to depict masonry exterior and unit separation walls since this method had been used in prior designs for Univel, and was understood by the contractor. However, since Harbour Cay was not finally designed structurally to include load-bearing masonry walls, the use of masonry could have overloaded the structure and created a safety hazard. The structural calculations assumed that all interior walls would be constructed of dry wall on metal studs rather than masonry.
In fact, the building contractor used columns in construction of the building and their location did not cause any particular difficulties resulting from their presence and location. The building contractors did not have any difficulty in using the plans and drawings because the structural drawings reflected the use of columns, and therefore it was recognized that interior walls would not be of the load-bearing type. The contractors rely on structural drawings to construct the building and when the frame, or skeleton, of the building is completed, they then find the architectural drawings to be important. The contractors had always used metal studs for buildings with columns because they were of lighter material than masonry. Respondent's architectural drawings reflected a note which disclaimed an intent to show structural information therein, and referred the user to the structural drawings. However, such a disclaimer cannot relieve an architect of his basic obligations to prepare accurate drawings. (Testimony of Power, Washer, Olson, Alles, Bennett, Stoner, Respondent, Exhibits 9, 12, 16)
Roof Slope - A roof slope was shown on the architectural drawings, but there was no information as to the method of creating such a slope. Although the structural drawings also did not show such method, it could have been accomplished by sloping the concrete roof slab, or by means of urethane foam. The contractor originally planned to use concrete, but this was later changed to the use of foam by means of a foam machine of the contractor which had been used on prior occasions. To be complete, building plans should reflect the manner in which the roof slope is to be created because if accomplished by sloping of the concrete slab, the structural drawings should so reflect this fact. (Testimony of Bennett, Stoner, Olson, Washer, Power, Exhibit 12)
Roof Hatch - Although the architectural drawings showed a detailed sketch of a roof hatch, they gave no information as to its location. Respondent was of the opinion that it could be located in the corridor, but the problem later became moot when field changes eliminated the necessity of a roof hatch and provided for a stairway to the roof. However, since such a roof opening would be made in the concrete slab, its location has structural significance and should have been shown in the architectural drawings. (Testimony of Stoner, Respondent, Power, Washer, Olson, Zeller, Exhibits 9, 12, 20)
Roof Parapet - Respondent's architectural drawings show the size of an intended roof parapet, but do not show necessary details for support of the parapet, such as anchorage and reinforcement, or the material to be used in its construction. This is necessary information in order that the structural engineer can design the required support. (Testimony of Washer, Stoner, Wagner, Zeller, Power, Exhibit 12)
Lintels - Respondent detailed only mailbox lintels in the architectural drawings, and not the lintels over windows and sliding glass doors. It is important to show the size of such openings in a load-bearing wall structure on the architectural drawings, but is not necessarily required to be on the structural plan if the walls are not load-bearing. The Harbour Cay contractor found no need for this type of detail on the plans in view of the fact that there was a standard practice of using precast "off-the- shelf" concrete lintels in Univel's projects. (Testimony of Meeler, Olson, Stoner, Wagner, Zeller, Washer, Respondent, Exhibits 9, 12)
Miscellaneous Discrepancies
Stairway and Balcony - Stairway and balcony details, to include handrail construction and attachment, were not shown on the architectural drawings. Respondent believed that since the stairs were shown on the structural drawings as made of reinforced concrete, this properly was a matter to be left to the structural engineer. However, in the opinion of experts, these are safety matters which properly should be shown in architectural drawings. (Testimony of Respondent, Wagner, Olson, Washer, Exhibits 9, 12, 21)
Window Sizes - There was a variation in window sizes in the architectural drawings. This was due to a subsequent change by the builder from sliding glass windows to single hung windows, and it was contemplated that the changes would be reflected on "as built" drawings. (Testimony of Washer, Zeller, Stoner, Exhibit 12).
Door Schedule and Location - Although Respondent showed details for both metal and wood doors in the architectural drawings, he did not include a door schedule to show the location and particular type of door to be utilized. Respondent left this up to the contractor who, based on prior experience,
determined where and what kind of doors should be used at various locations. Although location of jam detail was not shown, Respondent intended that his door jam detail be applicable whether metal studs or wood studs were used. The lack of specificity in this regard was the subject of inquiry by the city building department on its "plan check". (Testimony of Washer, Wagner, Respondent, Burke, Olson, Exhibits 8, 9, 12)
Incomplete Index of Drawings, Lack of Fixture, Finish, and Allowances Schedules, Closet Shelves - Respondent conceded that he had failed to provide a complete drawing index by omitting structural drawings due to the fact that tracing for the structural work was not given to him until the builder was requesting completed plans for submission to the building department. Omission of detail information concerning fixtures, shelves, cabinets, floor covering and appliances, was due to past practice between the architect and the builder whereby the cost and types of these items would vary depending upon desires of potential condominium purchasers and current economic conditions. This is not an unusual practice in the condominium building industry, in order to ensure profitability of sales. (Testimony of Washer, Respondent, Stoner, Zeller, Bennett, Exhibits 9, 12)
Screen Supports - Types of screen supports were not shown in the architectural drawings because these were to be proprietary items predesigned by the manufacturer. In such a situation, it is preferable to show the type required for safety purposes, particularly with regard to handrails. (Testimony of Washer, Wagner, Zeller, Respondent, Exhibit 12)
Roof Coating and Insulation - Respondent's plans called for a "tar and gravel roof". Although tar is infrequently used today, the term is generally acknowledged to include an option for either a tar or asphalt roofing system. Respondent noted two inches of roof insulation on his drawings, but did not specify the "R" value or type of material. The computations for such values were to be included under Respondent's contract, and he assumed that since Univel owned its own polyurethane foam insulation spray machine, that such material would be used on this project as it had in the past. (Testimony of Washer, Zeller, Stoner, Exhibits 9, 12)
Specifications - Although Respondent's specifications, as his drawings, were prepared with a load-bearing structure in mind as originally contemplated, no revision was made to take cognizance of the changed framing system. Specifically, with regard to concrete strength and masonry wall reinforcing, they were not in strict accord with the structural drawings. However, the specifications stated that they were to be used only if there was no other indication of concrete strength. The structural drawings indicated vertical reinforcement of masonry while the specifications called for additional horizontal reinforcement. (Testimony of Washer, Respondent, Power, Exhibits 9, 12)
Ordinarily, tradition and practice in the architectural profession provides that the designing architect of a particular building or project is to serve as the design coordinator among various other professionals who contribute to the overall design, including structural, mechanical and electrical engineers. The normal practice in such instances is for the architect to either employ the other professionals or to oversee their work and supervise construction to its conclusion. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the primary design professional who has specified the basic requirements for the building in question, and is therefore in the best position to ensure compliance with the basic design, can reconcile any conflicts or discrepancies
among the various disciplines. The practice also ensures compliance with various local laws and building codes for the safety and welfare of the public. It is ordinarily necessary that all work be coordinated so that the various parts of the building are compatible and achieve an integrated and harmonious result.
However, the extent of an architect's services properly can be limited by his contract with the owner or builder, particularly in the case of condominium projects. In a competitive economy, owners are desirous of controlling their own projects to the greatest extent possible in order to ensure expeditious design and construction, and to conserve costs. It is not uncommon in this field for an architect to provide only architectural drawings, with the builder providing for the procurement of engineering services and coordination of the overall result. In such instances, the engineering professionals are not subject to direct oversight by the architect. In fact, attempted control by an architect over other licensed professionals without contractual duties imposed for same can create friction and hamper successful completion of the project. In the final analysis, the building contractor is immediately responsible to the owner for proper construction, and the owner has ultimate control over all phases of the project.
The arrangements for construction of Harbour Cay involved a somewhat unusual situation, whereby Respondent contracted with the contractor rather than the owner, and limited his services primarily to preparation of architectural drawings with the provision that he would "cooperate" with the engineers. The other professionals were hired directly by Univel who, together with the other contractor, Stoner, and the owner's representative, Bennett, coordinated the overall project. This arrangement was deliberately chosen in order to provide increased efficiency and speed in accomplishing the project. Although they considered that Respondent had some responsibility in the coordination of the original plans for Harbour Cay, a number of changes were made without always consulting him first.
It is found that, although Respondent fulfilled his contractual obligation in "cooperating" with the various engineers in the preparation of design plans, he did not fulfill his basic responsibility to conform his architectural drawings to known changes in the building's structural system when it had been brought to his attention prior to submission of the plans to city officials for a building permit. (Testimony of Wagner, Washer, Burke, Zeller, Power, Olson, Alles, Bennett, Stoner, Respondent, Exhibit 15)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Petitioner seeks to impose discipline upon the Respondent based upon the following grounds set forth in Section 481.225, Florida Statutes:
481.225 Disciplinary Proceedings.--
(1) The following acts constitute
grounds for which the disciplinary actions in subsection (3) may be taken:
* * *
(e) Violation of any provision of s. 481.221;
* * *
Upon proof that the licensee is guilty of . . . negligence . . . or misconduct, in the practice of archi-
tecture;
Violation of any rule adopted pursuant to this act or Chapter 455;
* * *
(o) Failing to perform any statutory
or legal obligation placed upon a registered architect.
The bases for allegations under the above section are as follows:
Subsection 481.225(1)(e) F.S.--This subsection provides for discipline for any violation of Section 481.221. The Complaint alleges a violation of subsection 481.221(5), which reads as follows:
481.221 Seals.--
* * *
(5) Plans, drawings, specifications
and other related documents prepared by a registered architect as part of his architectural practice shall be of a sufficiently high standard to assure the users thereof against misunderstanding of
the requirements intended to be illustrated or described by them. To be of the re- quired standard, such documents should clearly and accurately indicate the design of the structural elements and of all other essential parts of the work to which they refer.
The key question in determining whether or not Respondent violated the above provision is to determine whether or not the word "users" in the statute refers only to those directly involved in the construction of a building, or includes future occupants and owners thereof, and whether the term should be used in a broad and academic sense. It is considered that "users" necessarily must be limited to those who are directly connected with the permitting and construction of the building. To extend the concept to unknown future users and occupants would create a vague standard which would be impossible of application. The evidence shows that Respondent's plans, drawings, and specifications were sufficiently understood by the owner, general contractors, and subcontractors, with the exception of the plumbing subcontractor who subsequently prepared revised plumbing drawings which were permitted, thus resolving any problems as to that phase of the project. The permitting officials accepted Respondent's work as adequate with minor exceptions and did not raise any questions as to basic deficiencies or inconsistencies between the architectural and structural drawings. However, the documents did not comply with that portion of the statute which requires them to "clearly and accurately indicate the design of the structural elements and of all essential parts of the work to which they refer." They did not reflect the basic structural design of the building as directed by the owners and as reflected in the structural drawings. Therefore, regardless of the apparent lack of confusion by the builders based upon construction of prior similar projects, Respondent's plans were not of the "sufficiently high standard" required under the statute. Such a violation of Section 481.221 therefore creates grounds for discipline under subsection 481.225(1)(e).
Subsection 481.225(1)(i) F.S. -- Petitioner alleges that Respondent is guilty of negligence and misconduct in the practice of architecture under this provision. The term "negligence" in the practice of architecture is defined in Petitioner's Rule 21B-12.01(4), Florida Administrative Code, as "the failure, by an architect, to exercise due care to conform to acceptable standards of architectural practice in such a manner as to be detrimental to a client or to the public at large." See also Conklin v. Cohen, 287 So.2d 56 (Fla. 1972). Respondent was negligent in failing to revise his architectural drawings to conform with the structural systems depicted on the structural drawings prior to submission of the plans to building officials for a building permit. His failure in this respect evidenced a lack of due care in the practice of architecture in that the respective drawings were thereby inconsistent and could have led to misjudgments by the users in construction. The mere fact that confusion was apparently not engendered in the minds of the contractors cannot excuse Respondent's negligence in this regard. As pointed out by Petitioner, even though the various subcontractors had worked together as a team on prior projects in the past and were cognizant of the construction requirements, substitution of such contractors could well have been made with subsequent misapplication of the intent of the building design. This could have led to a substantial hazard to the public in the erection of an unsafe structure. Similarly, Respondent's neglect in failing to include other structural details, as heretofore found in preceding paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17,
18 (a) and (b), cannot be excused on the basis of his expectation that such matters would be understood by the contractor based on past practice. Although most of the architectural experts who testified at the hearing agreed that a long association between architect and builder lessens the need for more minute detail in plans and drawings, they uniformly agreed that matters of structural significance and safety should not be left to the possibility of misinterpretation. It is therefore concluded that Respondent is subject to discipline under Subsection 481.225(1)(i) for negligence in the practice of architecture. Although the evidence fails to establish any overt misconduct in that regard, Petitioner's Complaint refers to Rule 21B-12.01(6)(f), F.A.C. as the basis for seeking to find misconduct on the part of Respondent. That rule provision refers to misconduct as including the violation of any law of the State of Florida directly regulating the practice of architecture. However, that portion of the Complaint does not point to the particular law of Florida that Respondent is alleged to have violated. In view of the fact that it has heretofore been found that Respondent violated Subsection 481.221(5), F.S., it is determined that such will support a basis for discipline under Subsection 481.225(1)(i) for misconduct in the practice of architecture.
Subsection 481.225(j), F.S. -- This ground for discipline is predicated upon violation of any rules adopted pursuant to Chapter 481. Petitioner has alleged that Respondent violated its rules 21B-12.01(4) and (6),
F.A.C. However, these rules simply implement grounds for discipline specified under Section 481.225, and therefore cannot be used as an independent basis for discipline.
Subsection 481.225(1)(o), F.S. -- The Complaint states, as a ground for discipline, violation of this subsection for failing to perform any statutory or legal obligation placed upon a registered architect; however, the Complaint does not specify what statutory or legal obligation Respondent is alleged to have failed to perform. As indicated above, the determination that Respondent violated Subsection 481.221(5), F.S., is deemed to constitute a sufficient basis for applying this subsection.
Petitioner seeks to revoke Respondent's license to practice architecture and to impose an administrative fine of $1,000 upon him as a penalty for his derelictions. Revocation of Respondent's license is considered to be too harsh a penalty for actions which, at best, were the result of simple negligence. No proof was adduced that Respondent intentionally sought to mislead or to defraud anyone connected with the Harbour Cay project. His shortcomings primarily were the result of the fact that he had enjoyed a comfortable and apparently undemanding relationship with Univel, Inc. over an extended period of time, and prior successful project completitions had probably lulled him into a sense of security which induced oversight and sloppiness in preparing his plans, drawings, and specifications. Petitioner does not contend that Respondent was responsible for or contributed to the unfortunate incident involving the collapse of the building with consequent deaths and injuries. It is probable that he would never have been called before the Board but for the occurrence of that disaster. Nevertheless, his negligent actions cannot be condoned and an appropriate penalty is warranted. It is considered that suspension of his license for a period of six months is a sufficient and justifiable penalty under the circumstances of this case.
At the commencement of the hearing, Petitioner filed a Motion to Tax Costs against Respondent for an extra fee paid a court reporter for preparing an expedited deposition. Although Respondent was late in responding to interrogatories, payment of Petitioner's additional expense is not justified. Motion is denied.
That the Board of Architecture suspend the license of Respondent William L. Juhn as a registered architect for a period of six months.
DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida.
THOMAS C. OLDHAM, 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 29th day of April, 1982.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Wings Slocum Benton, Esquire Assistant General Counsel
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Herbert R. Kanning, Esquire
1500 American Heritage Life Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Herbert Coons, Jr. Executive Director Board of Architecture
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Oct. 26, 1990 | Final Order filed. |
| Apr. 29, 1982 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jun. 04, 1982 | Agency Final Order | |
| Apr. 29, 1982 | Recommended Order | Suspend Respondent six months for negligence in drafting condominium plans. |
