STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

NANCY E. ALVIS, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-7872

)

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE ) AND INTERIOR DESIGN, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William R. Cave, held a formal hearing in the above- captioned case on May 13, 1992, in Sarasota, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Philip N. Hammersley, Esquire

TRAWICK HAMMERSLEY & VALENTINE

Post Office Box 4019 Sarasota, Florida 34230

For Respondent: Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Esquire

Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Room 1603

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 1050 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as an Interior Designer in the State of Florida should be granted under the provisions of Section 21, Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This cause arose upon the Petitioner's filing an application with the Board of Architecture and Interior Design (Board) for licensure as an Interior Designer in accordance with Chapter 481, Florida Statutes. Petitioner applied for licensure without taking the examination in interior design under the "grandfather" provisions of Section 21, Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida.

The Board by letter dated August 21, 1992, advised Petitioner that her application for licensure as an interior designer had been denied, and further advised her of her right to request formal administrative hearing under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner requested a formal hearing by letter dated October 14, 1991, and the matter was transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer and the conduct of a hearing. The hearing was initially scheduled for March 10, 1992, but was rescheduled for May 13, 1992 upon an unopposed request for continuance by Petitioner.

At the hearing, the Petitioner testified in her own behalf and presented the testimony of Steve Simon, Donald Stanzione and Michael O'Donnell.

Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 was received as evidence in this case. Respondent presented no witnesses or documentary evidence other than Joint Exhibit 1 which was received as evidence in this case.

A transcript of this proceeding was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 22, 1992. The parties timely filed their Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact submitted by the parties has been made as reflected in an Appendix to the Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Upon consideration of the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received in this case, the following relevant findings of fact are made:

1. In October 1989, Petitioner applied to the Board for licensure as an Interior Designer pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes and Section 21, Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida (commonly referred to as the grandfather clause), based upon six years of interior design experience prior to January 1, 1990. The application was timely filed and Petitioner paid the appropriate fee. During the application process, the Board required additional information from Petitioner, which was furnished, but on August 21, 1991, the Board issued its notice of denial stating that Petitioner had not shown sufficient evidence of compliance with the requirement of the grandfather clause of six years' interior design experience prior to January 1, 1990. The Board advised the Petitioner that her experience was in the nature of "a cabinet work detailer, not as an Interior Designer.

   
   

2. Petitioner began designing custom furniture in 1978 when she and her husband started a business known as Village Woodworking. The business grew to include built-in furniture, cabinetry and related interior design services over the years.

   
   

3. As early as 1981, Petitioner began consulting with clients directly on matters such as space utilization, lighting, kitchen design, bathroom design and fabrication of custom-made cabinetry and built-in furniture. Often Petitioner would prepare drawings to reflect her design concepts which were later incorporated into the client's homes or businesses. In 1982, Petitioner consulted on numerous interior design matters in the renovation of the Gardinier estate property. These matters included the design of custom made dining room furniture, space utilization throughout the estate buildings, lighting and the design, fabrication and placement of custom-made cabinetry and built-in furniture. These consultations went on over a period of approximately three years.

4. From the early 1980s through the date of the hearing, Petitioner has consistently consulted with clients, architects and interior designers by reviewing architectural plans and specifications, suggesting modifications and changes, preparing shop drawings to incorporate her design concepts into construction and renovation projects and by designing and fabricating cabinets, furniture and built-in furniture. Some of the jobs where Petitioner performed all or part of these services were: (a) Steve Simon's office; (b) Central National Bank; (c) Wellscraft Marina; (d) Law offices; (e) Sarney Residence on Siesta Key and the Patterman Residence; and (f) the Gardinier Estate mentioned in Finding of Fact 3. These jobs covered a period from 1982 to 1987. Also, it was Petitioner's unrebutted testimony that she had been rendering interior design services such as those mentioned above for over six years prior to January 1, 1990.

   
   

5. There is competent, substantial evidence to establish facts to show that Petitioner has been performing, and is qualified to perform interior design consultations and studies and to prepare drawings and specifications in connection with lighting plans, space utilization, furnishings and fabrication of nonstructured elements within and surrounding interior spaces of buildings, both residential and commercial, and has been continuously engaged in, and performing, this type of work in the normal course of her business for more than six years prior to January 1, 1990.

   
   

6. There was insufficient evidence to show that Petitioner's work had been limited to that of a "cabinet work detailer" but there was sufficient evidence to show that the services described above constituted a large portion of Petitioner's business for at least six years prior to January 1, 1990.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

7. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

   
   

8. Chapter 88-383, Section 21, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89- 19, Laws of Florida, provides in pertinent part as follows:

   
   

   1. Any person who applies for licensure as a registered interior designer and remits the application and initial licensure fee by January 1, 1990, shall be licensed by the department without taking the examination or otherwise meeting the qualifications of s. 481.209(2), Florida Statutes, provided the applicant:

      * * *

      (b) Has used or been identified by the title "interior designer" and has at least 6 years of interior design experience.

      * * *

      (3) A person shall be deemed to have used or been identified by the title "interior designer" within the meaning of this section if such person demonstrates to the satisfaction of the board that such person was either on his own account, which means

      self-employed, or in the course of regular employment, rendering or offering to render to another person interior design services

      as defined in s. 481.203(8), Florida Statutes.

      
      

9. Section 481.203(8), Florida Statutes, defines interior design as follows:

   
   

   (8) "Interior design" means design services which do not necessarily require performance by an architect, including consultations, studies, drawings, and specifications in connection with reflected ceiling plans, space utilization, furnishings, or the fabrication of nonstructural elements within and surrounding interior spaces of buildings; but specifically excluding mechanical and electrical systems, except for specification of fixtures and their location within interior spaces. Except as provided herein, interior design shall not include services which require performance by an architect.

   
   

10. The Petitioner, as the person seeking licensure without examination under Chapter 88-383, Section 21, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida, has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts support her entitlement to licensure. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 778, 779 (1 DCA Fla.1981) and Rule 28-6.08(3), Florida Administrative Code. The evidence clearly shows that Petitioner meets the requirement of Chapter 88-383, Section 21, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida, and therefore, Petitioner has met her burden.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order granting Petitioner licensure as an Interior Designer without examination under the provisions of Chapter 88-383, Section 21, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida.

DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

WILLIAM R. CAVE

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904)488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1992.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER

The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case.

Specific Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner

1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the finding(s) of fact which adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 3(2); 4(3); 5(4-5); 7(6); 8(6); and 9(6).

   
   

2. Proposed finding of fact 2 is more of a restatement of the witnesses' testimony rather than stated as a proposed finding of fact, but see finding of fact 4.

   
   

3. Proposed finding of fact 6 is not necessary in that the affidavits corroborates the testimony of Petitioner as set out in findings of fact 2-4.

Specific Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent

1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the finding(s) of fact which adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(2); 2(2); 3-6(4); 9(2); and 11(3).

   
   

2. Proposed findings of fact 7, 8 and 10 are not relevant to the conclusions reached in the Recommended Order.

   
   

3. Rejected as not being supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Philip N. Hammersley, Esquire TRAWICK HAMMERSLEY & VALENTINE

Post Office Box 4019 Sarasota, Florida 34230

Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs

The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 1050

Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Architecture & Interior Design Northwood Centre - Suite 60

1940 N Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0751

Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel

Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0792

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to 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: 91-007872

Orders for Case No: 91-007872