STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION ) DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 96-0259

)

LABREE, INC., )

D/B/A ROYAL MANSIONS RESORT, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A formal hearing was conducted in this proceeding before Daniel Manry, a duly designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on August 13, 1996, in Orlando, Florida. The parties, their witnesses, and the court reporter attended the formal hearing in Orlando. The undersigned participated by video conference from Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: William M. Woodyary

Assistant General Counsel Department of Business

and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399

For Respondent: Houston E. Short, Esquire

Pohl and Short, P.A.

280 West Canton Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789

Craig S. Wakefield, Esquire 14000 West Oak Street Kissimmee, Florida 34741

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue for determination is whether Respondent violated Section 509.215(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), 1/ by failing to install a fire sprinkler system and appropriate signs in the corridors of a public lodging establishment.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner issued a Notice To Show Cause on December 21, 1993. Respondent timely requested a formal hearing.

At the formal hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of three witnesses and submitted 10 exhibits for admission in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of two witnesses and submitted four exhibits for admission in evidence.

The identity of the witnesses and exhibits, and the rulings regarding each, are set forth in the transcript of the formal hearing filed on August 28, 1996. Petitioner timely filed its proposed recommended order ("PRO") on September 9, 1996. Respondent timely filed its PRO on September 5, 1996.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Parties

   
   

   1. Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to operate public lodging establishments. Petitioner also regulates public lodging establishments.

      
      

   2. Respondent operates a public lodging establishment as Royal Mansions Resort (the "complex"). 2/ The complex is located in Port Canaveral, Florida.

      
      

2. The Complex

   
   

3. The construction contract for the complex was let after September 30, 1983. 3/ The complex obtained building permits in October, 1986, and obtained certificates of occupancy in October, 1988.

   
   

4. The complex contains three buildings. Each building is at least three stories in height.

   
   

5. The three buildings contain 108 dwelling units or "guest areas." One building contains 36 guest areas. The second building contains 24 guest areas, and the third building contains 48 guest areas.

   
   

6. Each building contains a 72-foot corridor on the second floor which extends the length of the building (the "corridors"). The corridors provide access to guest areas on the second and third floors. 4/

   
   

7. The corridors are located in the center of the buildings. Doors on both sides of each corridor provide access to heated and cooled guest areas inside the building.

   
   

8. Guests enter guest areas on the second and third floors through the doors located on both sides of the corridor in the center of each building.

   Once inside the doors, guests may enter doors to the second floor guest areas or take interior stairs to the third floor guest areas. 5/

   
   

9. Guests egress the corridors by walking down a flight of stairs located at each end of the corridors. Exit signs are located at both ends of each corridor.

1. Background

   
   

   1. More than 50 percent of the guest areas are rented as transient units and are subject to Petitioner's jurisdiction. Petitioner licenses 102 of the guest areas for transient rental.

   2. Petitioner first licensed the complex for transient rental in 1988. Since 1988, Petitioner has inspected the complex on a routine basis. From 1989- 1991, Petitioner did not require a fire sprinkler system in the corridors.

      
      

   3. On August 11, 1993, Petitioner cited Respondent for violating Section 509.215(1)(a). Petitioner cited Respondent for failing to install a fire sprinkler system and post appropriate signs in the corridors. On September 13, 1993, Petitioner performed a follow-up inspection to ascertain whether Respondent had installed the sprinkler system and posted the appropriate signs.

      
      

   4. Respondent had neither installed the sprinkler system and posted the signs nor requested an extension of time to do so. On December 21, 1993, Petitioner issued a Notice To Show Cause for failure to install a sprinkler system and for failure to post the appropriate signs.

      
      

   5. Petitioner alleges that the corridors in the complex are "interior corridors which do not have direct access from the guest area to exterior means of egress" within the meaning of Section 509.215(1)(a). Neither Section 509.215 nor the definitions in Section 509.013 define "interior corridors." The statute merely requires a sprinkler system for "interiorcorridors [which do not have direct access from the guest area to exterior means of egress]." [emphasis supplied]

      
      

   6. By necessary implication, Section 509.215(1)(a) does not require a sprinkler system for exterior corridors. The statute may intend the underlined phrase as a definitional distinction between interior and exterior corridors. Alternatively, the statute may intend the underlined phrase to limit the requirement for a sprinkler system to those interior corridors "which do not have direct access from the guest area to exterior means of egress." If so, the statute does not require sprinkler systems for interior corridors which "have direct access from the guest area to exterior means of egress."

      
      

2. Statutory Terms: Plain And Ordinary Meaning

   
   

   1. The terms "interior corridors" and "exterior means of egress" are not defined in Sections 509.215, 509.013, or applicable rules. Terms that are not defined by statute or rule should be interpreted according to their plain and ordinary meaning whenever possible. 6/

      
      

   2. The term "interior" means "on the inside." 7/ The corridors are not "on the inside" of any of the buildings.

      
      

   3. Each corridor is open to the sky and air at both ends, is not enclosed on four sides, and has no dead ends. The corridors are not part of the heated and cooled space inside the buildings.

      
      

   4. Even if the corridors were interior corridors, the statute would not require them to have a sprinkler system because the corridors "have direct access . . . to exterior means of egress." The corridors have direct access to exits located at the ends of the corridors.

      
      

   5. Even if Section 509.215(1)(a) could be construed to require the guest areas to "have direct access . . . to exterior means of egress," the corridors are an exterior means of egress. The term "egress" means "a way out." 8/ The term "egress" is not synonymous with being "out." It is merely a way out.

   6. Each corridor in the complex is an exterior means of a way out. Each corridor is open to the sky and air at each end, is not enclosed on four sides, and has no dead ends. None of the corridors are heated and cooled.

      
      

   7. Each corridor is able to expel any products of combustion that may be provided during a fire. The corridor walls, doors, floor, and ceiling are constructed with assemblies that exceed the fire ratings prescribed by all applicable codes. Each corridor provides a clear and unencumbered path to an exit. Each corridor is an exterior means of egress, i.e., a way out.

   
   

3. Statutory Terms: Safety and Building Codes

1. Even if safety and building codes are used to define statutory terms, the corridors "have direct access from the guest area to exterior means of egress" within the meaning of Section 509.215(1)(a). The corridors have direct access to exits at both ends of the corridors. Those exits satisfy the definition of an exterior means of egress contained in the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (the "Life Safety Code") and the Standard Building Code (the Standard Building Code"), 1984-1994. Even if Section 509.215(1)(a) could be construed to require guest areas to "have direct access . . . to exterior means of egress," the corridors are an exterior means of egress within the meaning of the Life Safety Code and Standard Building Code.

   
   

   1. The Life Safety Code

      
      

2. The substantive definition of a "means of egress" has remained unchanged in the Life Safety Code from 1985 through the present. A "means of egress" is defined in the Life Safety Code as:

   
   

   . . . a continuous and unobstructed way of exit travel from any point in a building

   . . . to a public way and consists of three separate and distinct parts: (a) the exit access, (b) the exit, and (c) the exit discharge. A means of egress comprises the vertical and horizontal travel and [shall] include intervening . . . corridors

   . . . stairs . . . exits . . . [and] yards. [emphasis supplied]

   
   

   Life Safety Code, Sec. 5-1.2.1, Means of Egress, at 38 (ed. 1985).

   
   

3. An "exit access" is "that portion of a means of egress which leads to an entrance to an exit." Id. The corridors lead to entrances to exits at both ends of the corridors. Each corridor is that portion of a "means of egress" defined in the Life Safety Code as an exit access. 9/

   
   

4. Even if the requirement for corridors to "have direct access from the guest area to exterior means of egress" could be construed to require the guest areas to "have direct access . . . to exterior means of egress," the corridors satisfy such a requirement. The guest areas have direct access to corridors that comprise an integral part of a "means of egress."

   
   

5. No reasonable construction of Section 509.215(1)(a) would require guest areas to have direct access to all three parts of a "means of egress" simultaneously. Direct access to an integral part of a continuous and unobstructed means of egress would satisfy the spirit and intent of any

   reasonable statutory construction. The corridors in the complex provide "direct access from the guest area to "that portion of a means of egress" defined in the Life Safety Code as an "exit access."

   
   

6. Each corridor is an "exterior" means of egress. None corridor is enclosed on four sides, has dead ends, or is heated and cooled.

   
   

7. Each corridor is open at both ends to the sky and air and able to expel any products of combustion that may be provided during a fire. The walls, doors, floor, and ceiling of each corridor are constructed with assemblies that exceed the fire ratings prescribed by applicable codes.

   
   

   1. The Standard Building Code Of 1985

      
      

8. The Standard Building Code of 1985 defines a "means of egress" as:

   
   

   . . . a continuous path of travel from any point in a building . . . to the open air outside at ground level, consisting of two separate and distinct parts: (1) the exit access, and (2) the exit. A means of

   egress comprises the vertical and horizontal means of travel and [may] include the . . . corridor. [emphasis supplied]

   
   

   Standard Building Code, Sec. 202, Definitions, at 11 (ed. 1985).

   
   

9. The term "exit access" is defined in the 1985 Standard Building Code as, "that portion of a means of egress which leads to an entrance to an exit." The term "exit" is defined in the 1985 Standard Building Code as:

   
   

   . . . that portion of a means of egress which is separated from the area of the building from which escape is to be made, by walls, floors, doors, or other means which provide the protected path necessary for the occupants to proceed with safety to a public space.

   
   

   Standard Building Code, Sec. 202, Definitions, at 8 (ed. 1985).

   
   

10. The corridor in each building in the complex is that portion of a "means of egress" defined in the 1985 Standard Building Code as the exit access. Each corridor leads to an exit and comprises the horizontal means of travel to the exit.

    
    

11. Each exit is separated from the area of the building from which escape is to be made by corridor walls, floors, doors, and ceilings. The walls, floors, doors, and ceiling of each corridor exceed the fire ratings prescribed by all applicable codes. They provide a protected path necessary for the occupants to proceed with safety to a public space.

    
    

12. Even if the requirement for corridors to "have direct access from the guest area to exterior means of egress" could be construed to require guest areas to "have direct access . . . to exterior means of egress," the corridors satisfy such a requirement. Each corridor is that portion of a means of egress

    defined as an exit access. The corridors and exits provide guests with continuous paths of travel from the guest areas to the open air outside at ground level.

    
    

13. The corridor in each building in the complex is an "exterior" means of egress within the meaning of the 1985 Standard Building Code. Each corridor is open to the outside at both ends, is not enclosed on four sides, has no dead ends, and is not heated and cooled.

    
    

    1. The 1994 Standard Building Code

    
    

14. The Standard Building Code of 1994 defines a "means of egress" as:

    
    

    . . . a continuous and unobstructed way of exit travel from any point in a building

    . . . to a public way, consisting of three separate and distinct parts: (1) the way of exit access, (2) the exit; and (3) the way of exit discharge. A means of egress comprises the vertical and horizontal means

    of travel and [shall] include . . . corridors. [emphasis supplied]

    
    

    Standard Building Code, Sec. 202, Definitions, at 27 (ed. 1994).

    
    

15. The term "exit access" is defined in the 1994 Standard Building Code as, "that portion of a means of egress which leads to an entrance to an exit." The term "exit" is defined in the 1994 Standard Building Code as:

    
    

    . . . that portion of a means of egress which is separated from all other spaces of a building . . . by construction and

    opening protectives, as required for exits, to provide a protected way of travel to the exit discharge. Exits include . . . separated exit stairs. . . .

    
    

    An "exit discharge" is defined as "that portion of a means of egress between the termination of an exit and a public way." Standard Building Code, Sec. 202, Definitions, at 23-24 (ed. 1994).

    
    

16. The corridor in each building in the complex is that portion of a "means of egress" defined in the 1994 Standard Building Code as the exit access. Each corridor leads to entrances to exits at both ends of the corridor and comprises the horizontal means of travel to the exits.

    
    

17. Even if the requirement for corridors to "have direct access from the guest area to exterior means of egress" could be construed to require the guest areas to "have direct access . . . to exterior means of egress," the corridors satisfy such a requirement. Each corridor is that portion of a means of egress defined as an exit access. The corridors, exits, and exit discharges provide guests with continuous paths of travel from the guest areas to the open air outside at ground level.

18. The corridor in each building in the complex is an "exterior" means of egress within the meaning of the 1994 Standard Building Code. Each corridor is open to the air and sky at both ends, is not enclosed on four sides, has no dead ends, and is not heated and cooled.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

19. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties in this proceeding. The parties were duly noticed for the formal hearing.

    
    

20. Petitioner has the burden of proof in this proceeding. Petitioner must show by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Section 509.215(1)(a) by failing to install required sprinkler systems and by failing to post appropriate signs in each of the corridors in the complex. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

    
    

21. Section 509.215(1)(a) provides, in relevant part, that any public lodging establishment:

    
    

    . . . which is of three stories or more and for which the construction contract has been let after September 30, 1983, with interior corridors which do not have direct access from the guest area to exterior means of egress . . . . shall be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system. . . .

    
    

    The complex is a public lodging establishment that is three stories or more.

    The construction contract for the complex was let after September 30, 1983. The second floor corridors in the complex are corridors within the meaning of Section 509.215(1)(a).

    
    

22. The terms "interior" and "exterior means of egress" are not defined by applicable statutes or rules. Terms that are not defined by statute or rule should be interpreted according to their plain and ordinary meaning whenever possible. State, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement v. Moore,

    524 So.2d 704, 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Leisure Resorts, Inc. v.Frank J. Rooney, Inc., 654 So.2d 911, 914 (Fla. 1995)(holding that the legislature intends the plain and obvious meaning of words used in a statute); Boca Raton Artificial Kidney Center, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 493 So.2d 1055, 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)(interpreting words in rules in accordance with their plain and ordinary meaning).

    
    

23. As a threshold matter, the corridors in the complex are not "interior" corridors. They are exterior corridors. Each corridor opens to the air and sky at both ends, has no dead ends, is not enclosed on all four sides, and is not heated and cooled.

    
    

24. Even if the corridors were "interior" corridors, they are not the type of "interior" corridors for which Section 509.215(1) requires a sprinkler system. The corridors "have direct access from the guest area to exterior means of egress" whether the quoted terms are interpreted by their plain and ordinary meaning or by technical definitions in the Life Safety Code and the Standard Building Code.

25. Even if the requirement for corridors to "have direct access from the guest area to exterior means of egress" could be construed to require the guest areas to "have direct access . . . to exterior means of egress," the corridors satisfy such a requirement. Each corridor is that portion of a means of egress defined as an exit access. The corridors, exits, and exit discharges provide guests with continuous paths of travel from the guest areas to the open air outside at ground level.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not

guilty of violating Section 509.215(1)(a) and dismissing the Notice To Show

Cause.

RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida.

DANIEL S. MANRY

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (904) 921-6847

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1996.

ENDNOTES

1 All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1995) unless otherwise stated.

2/ The term "complex" is defined in Sec. 509.031(7).

3/ Sec. 509.215(1), in relevant part, requires automatic sprinkler systems for any public lodging establishment that is three stories or more if the construction contract has been let after September 30, 1983.

4/ Occupants enter and exit ground floor units directly and not from the second floor corridor.

5/ Petitioner claims that a fourth floor exists in the form of a penthouse unit above the third floor guest area. Resolution of that issue is unnecessary since the third floor units are sufficient to subject the complex to the purview of Sec. 509.215(1)(a).

6/ See, State, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement v. Moore,

524 So.2d 704, 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Leisure Resorts, Inc. v. Frank J. Rooney, Inc., 654 So.2d 911, 914 (Fla. 1995)(holding that the legislature intends the plain and obvious meaning of words used in a statute); Boca Raton

Artificial Kidney Center, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 493 So.2d 1055, 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)(interpreting words in rules in accordance with their plain and ordinary meaning).

7/ See, Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, 734 (2d ed. World Pub. Co. 1970).

8/ See, Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, 446 (2d ed. World Pub. Co. 1970).

9/ A means of egress, "leads to a public way." It is not itself a public way. The corridors in the complex lead to a public way within the meaning of teh Life Safety Code.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Dorothy W. Joyce, Director Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Division of Hotels and Restaurants Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Lynda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

William M. Woodyard Assistant General Counsel Department of Business

and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Houston E. Short, Esquire Pohl and Short, P.A.

280 West Canton Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789

Craig S. Wakefield, Esquire 14000 West Oak Street Kissimmee, Florida 34741

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exception within 15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 96-000259

Orders for Case No: 96-000259