STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DONALD P. SENATORE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 82-2892

) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD ) OF ARCHITECTURE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A final hearing was held in this matter before Marvin E. Chavis, duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on November 30, 1983, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Donald P. Senatore, Pro Se

9151 N.W. 24th Street Sunrise, Florida 33322

For Respondent: John J. Rimes, III, Esquire

Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

ISSUES AND BACKGROUND

This case concerns the issue of whether Petitioner should be granted a license to practice architecture in the State of Florida. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner testified on his own behalf and offered and had admitted into evidence four exhibits. The Respondent called as its only witness, Mr.

Herbert Coons, a licensed architect.

Subsequent to the final hearing, counsel for the Respondent and the Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions are inconsistent with this order, they were rejected as being unsupported by the evidence or as unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner, Donald P. Senatore has applied for licensure to practice architecture in the State of Florida. Mr. Senatore applied for licensure by examination. The architecture examination in Florida is given in two parts. A

   written examination is given in December of each year and a design and site plan examination is given in June of each year.

   
   

2. The Petitioner has met all requirements for licensure except a passing grade on the design and site plan examination. The Petitioner took the design and site plan portion of the examination in June 1983, and received a failing grade. As a result of this failing grade, Petitioner was denied licensure and it is this denial that is challenged in this proceeding.

   
   

3. The examination is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of professional Regulation, and is provided to the State of Florida by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards. The examination gives the requirements or program for the design of a specific structure including site plan, elevations, the building itself, cross-sections, facades and floor plans. The various requirements for the design are provided to the applicant in the form of a pre-examination booklet.

   
   

4. The examination was graded by at least three licensed architects selected by various architectural registration boards and trained by NCARB. The graders are asked to note particular areas where the applicant's design showed strength or weakness. The graders noted 26 separate areas in which they found Petitioner's solution to the design problem to be weak.

   
   

5. Respondent called as its only witness, Mr. Herbert Coons, a licensed architect in the State of Florida for 28 years. He has also served as a grader of architectural design and site plan examinations since 1968. Mr. Coons reviewed the design solution of the Petitioner and identified the following areas of weakness:

   
   

   1. No handicapped parking spaces were shown in the parking area as required by the program.

   2. The service drive continues behind the ter- minal onto the aircraft apron, thus creating a hazard. This service drive permits nonairport personnel to drive onto the apron and perhaps

      the taxiway with no restrictions.

   3. The program called for a completely screened service area and the Petitioner pro- vided a partial screen.

   4. Petitioner's adjustment in the contours of the land surrounding the terminal causes the water to drain toward the building. The existing contours allowed water to flow around the building much better than the adjusted contours.

   5. The program required that the toilet facilities be easily accessible "to all ground floor functions" and Petitioner placed the toilet areas at the opposite end of the building from the baggage claim area. To be easily accessible, these facilities should have been more centrally located.

   6. The main stairway to the second floor passenger area is not identified by a sign for passengers in the main lobby and this stairway, along with the handicapped elevator, are located in a small cul-de-sac rendering them more difficult to locate.

   7. The design solution requires that a person go outside the terminal and back in through

      the overhead doors to get from airline opera- tions to the baggage claim area.

   8. There is no access provided from the interior of the airport to the mechanical maintenance area.

   9. The design does not properly show which walls are bearing walls and the design shows a 60 foot span beam in the baggage area.

      This could create a structural problem in that area.

   10. There is no detail or note given by which it can be determined whether the windows in

       the gift stand area, passenger area, and rest- aurant area are operable windows.

   11. The fire exit stair exits into the lobby rather than to the outside and this makes the lobby part of the exit area and therefore the lobby must have the same fire rating as the stair area.

   12. The service elevator improperly exits directly into the kitchen of the restaurant. Thus nonkitchen service personnel and materials must pass through the kitchen when going to the second floor level.

   13. The manager's office is in a completely isolated portion of the building and is directly adjacent to air-conditioning equip- ment located on the roof. There are no windows provided for the manager's office.

   14. There are no fixtures shown in the bath- rooms. This was required by the program.

   15. There is an area on the roof behind the bathrooms which is walled in but has no roof. This area contains air-conditioning equipment and would cause heavy snow and rain accumula- tion in that area.

   16. The structural system in the design was too diverse in that Petitioner used steel, concrete poured around steel, concrete tees and light gauge metal framing. Use of these materials as designed is also inconsistent with the requirement that the design and the

       materials used create a warm, ski-lodge effect.

   17. The program required that the Petitioner show where the air-conditioning duct runs are to be located and that he give a brief descrip- tion of the type of mechanical equipment to be used. Petitioner did not include these items in his design.

   18. There are no curb cuts provided in the baggage claim area to enable trucks to get over the 3" or more high curb.

   19. The Petitioner included a complaint desk in the baggage claim area. This was not required by the program.

   20. Petitioner did not design for potential use of natural ventilation during the mild months of the year.

       
       

       Mr. Coons testified that in his opinion the design and site plan prepared by Petitioner was a failing solution. The Petitioner did not call an architect to testify on his behalf and countered Mr. Coon's opinion solely with his own personal testimony of the adequacy of his solution. Under these circumstances, the opinion of Mr. Coon's is accepted and the design solution of Petitioner is found to be a failing solution.

       
       

       CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

       
       

6. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties of this action.

   
   

7. The Board of Architecture is empowered in Florida to certify for licensure those persons who qualify under Chapter 481, Florida Statutes, to become a licensed architect in Florida. Section 481.213, Florida Statutes (1982). In order to be licensed, an individual must pass the examination given for that purpose. Section 481.211, Florida Statutes (1982).

   
   

8. In the instant case, the Petitioner received a failing score on the design and site plan examination. This failing grade was based upon 26 separate areas cited by the graders as weak areas in his solution. These weaknesses were further verified by a qualified expert in the final hearing of this matter.

   This expert's opinion regarding the design solution was uncontroverted by other expert testimony.

   
   

9. Any person seeking licensure in the State of Florida bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence their entitlement to the license they are seeking. Florida Department of Transposition v. J.W.C. Company, Inc.,

396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Petitioner has failed to meet that burden in the instant case.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is, RECOMMENDED:

That a Final Order be entered by the Board of Architecture denying petitioner's application for a license to practice architecture in the State of Florida.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of April 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida

MARVIN E. CHAVIS

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April 1984.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Herbert Coons, Jr. Executive Director Board of Architecture

Department of professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Fred Roche, Secretary

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Donald P. Senatore 9151 N.W. 24th Street Sunrise, Florida 33322

Docket for Case No: 82-002892

Orders for Case No: 82-002892