STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, FLORIDA )
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY )
LICENSING BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 85-0655
)
TROY GRIFFIN, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
This case was heard on July 25, 1985 in Jacksonville, Florida, by Stephen F. Dean, assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. This case was presented by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board against Troy Griffin on an Administrative Complaint which alleged that Griffin installed a built-up roof on a house in Jacksonville, Florida which was supposed to have multiple layers of felt (tar paper) and Griffin did not use as many layers as the code required and Griffin repaired the roof when he was not registered or certified as a roofing contractor.
The Respondent failed to respond to request for admissions filed by Petitioner, 1-11 of which were deemed admitted by the order entered 23 July 1985. These are set forth as findings of fact 1-6 below. The Respondent moved to dismiss because the statute of limitations had run. There is no statute of limitations on administrative proceedings, and the doctrine of laches is not applicable under the facts presented.
Respondent's motion is denied.
The factual issue was whether Griffin put down sufficient layers of roofing felt.
The legal issue is whether a residential contractor can repair a built-up roof, which is dependent upon whether the local authorities require an examination for a certificate of
competency. The Petitioner failed to prove the alleged violations.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Respondent's name is Troy Griffin.
The Respondent is now and was at all times relevant to the pending Administrative Complaint, a registered residential contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license number RR 0030688.
The Respondent is not now and at no time material to the pending Administrative Complaint was the Respondent a certified or registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida.
At all times material to the pending Administrative Complaint, the Respondent's license #RR 0030688 qualified Griffin Remodeling & Repairs, Jacksonville, Florida.
In June 1978 the Respondent d/b/a Griffin Remodeling and Repairs contracted to repair the residence of June Moody, Jacksonville, Florida.
The contracting work included work upon the Moody's built-up roof, which Respondent re-roofed pursuant to contract.
Respondent built up the roof with more than one layer of felt in 1978. These layers were discovered by the city's inspector in 1982. Respondent returned in 1978 and patched the roof he installed. These patches were seen by the city's inspector in 1982. The owner, Moody, did not complain of leaks in 1982. There was no evidence of leaks in 1982.
A roof poorly installed without sufficient tar and felt will leak within the time that has passed between 1978 and 1982. See inspector's testimony in response to Hearing Officer's question.
Moody's home was a single family, one story residence.
No evidence was received regarding whether the City of Jacksonville requires examinations of roofing contractors prior to their certification.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board has authority to regulate and discipline residential contractors, to
include the Respondent. This hearing was held and this order entered pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.
The Administrative Complaint makes two factual allegations against Griffin: (1) Griffin installed a built-up roof without enough layers of felt, and (2) Griffin repaired a built-up roof on a residence. These acts are alleged to be violations of the building code of Jacksonville, Florida and the Florida Statutes.
A copy of the applicable code was introduced as Petitioner's Exhibit 3. It reveals no requirement for three layers of mopped felt as asserted in the Administrative Complaint. It states one 30 pound layer of felt is sufficient. See 900-802.3(c)(4), Jacksonville Code. No evidence was received regarding the weight of the felt placed on the roof; however, more than one layer was revealed during the 1982 inspection.
Evidence was presented on mopping felt; however, the Administrative Complaint does not allege any failure to mop properly. The inspector testified that his 1982 inspection revealed pieces of felt without tar on them and offered his opinion that every piece of felt should have tar on it. However, according to the witness, a poorly tarred roof would leak. The facts revealed no leaks in the roof after the Respondent repaired it in 1978. Although this issue is outside the scope of the administrative complaint and the 1982 inspection was remote from the 1978 work, it is concluded the roof .vas "thoroughly" tarred as required by the Jacksonville code because there were no leaks. The Respondent did not violate the Jacksonville Code by installing too few sheets of felt and did thoroughly mop the tar when he installed it.
The Administrative Complaint alleges the Respondent repaired a built-up roof when he was not a roofing contractor. The facts reveal Respondent was a residential contractor and not a roofing contractor. The legal issue is whether a residential contractor can repair a built-up roof.
Section 489.113(3), Florida Statutes (1983), and Section 468.1u2(1), Florida Statutes (1977), both provide that contractors subcontract roofing when local examination for a certificate of competency is required by local authority. The factual issue is whether the City of Jacksonville required a local examination for a certificate of competency. There was no evidence presented to establish this requirement. Section
489.105(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1983), and Section 468.102)1)(e), Florida Statutes (1977), provide:
"Residential Contractor" means a contractor whose services are limited to construction, remodeling, repairs, or improvement of one- family, two family, or three family residences not exceeding two stories in length . . ." (emphasis supplied)
This definition places no restriction on the scope residential contractor's activity, that is, a residential contractor can build or repair any part of a residence to include the roof, in the absence of local regulations requiring an examination for certification as a roofer. The repair of the Moody's roof by Respondent was within the scope of his license, and was not a violation as alleged in the absence of proof of a local requirement for an examination for certification.
In the absence of showing the City of Jacksonville requires an examination for a certificate of competency the Board has failed to demonstrate the Respondent violated the statutes as alleged.
Having found that the Respondent did not commit the alleged violations, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed and no action be taken.
DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida.
STEPHEN F. DEAN
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Buildina
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904)488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 1985.
COPIES FURNISHED:
W. Douglas Beason, Esq. Department of Professional
Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Troy Griffin
7443 Laura Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional
Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
James Linnan, Executive Direetor Department of Professional -I
Regulation.
Construction Industry Licensing Board
P. O. Box 2
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Aug. 23, 1985 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Nov. 21, 1985 | Agency Final Order | |
| Aug. 23, 1985 | Recommended Order | There was no violation of city code. Respondent put down enough layers of felt and mopped thoroughly. There was no certification of compensation needed when roof repairs just part of overall job. |
