STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ANNE C. PEPPER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 92-0540

)

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

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A hearing was held in this case in West Palm Beach, Florida on March 26, 1992, before Arnold H. Pollock, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner: Anne C. Pepper, pro se

333 Seaspray Avenue

Palm Beach, Florida 33480

For the Respondent: John J. Rimes, III, Esquire

Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Petitioner possesses the required experience qualifications to be licensed as an interior designer in Florida under the grandfather provisions of the pertinent licensing statutes and rules.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated December 10, 1991, Angel T. Gonzalez, the Executive Director of the State of Florida's Board of Architecture and Interior Design, advised the Petitioner, Anne C. Pepper, that her application for registration and licensure as an interior designer in Florida was denied because it did not show sufficient evidence that she had met the definition of an interior designer for a full six years prior to 1990. In response, by letter of December 16, 1991, Ms. Pepper requested a formal hearing on that determination, and on January 27, 1992, the file was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for appointment of a Hearing Officer. Neither party responded to the Initial Order herein and as a result, on March 9, 1992, the undersigned, to whom the case had been transferred in the interim, sua sponte entered a Notice of

Hearing setting the matter for hearing in West Palm Beach on March 26, 1992, at which time it was held as scheduled.

At the hearing, Petitioner testified in her own behalf and presented the testimony of Kathleen Maycen and Louise W. Floeckher, clients, and Neal McGinnis, owner of Jessup, Inc., an interior design firm by which the Petitioner is employed. Petitioner also introduced Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 4.

Respondent presented no witnesses but introduced Respondent's Exhibit A, Petitioner's application file. Without objection, the undersigned officially recognized Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida, Chapter 481, Florida Statutes, and Rule 21B, F.A.C.

A transcript was provided and received on April 27, 1992. Only Respondent submitted Proposed Findings of Fact which have been ruled upon in the Appendix to this Recommended Order. At the hearing the parties agreed that upon the request of Respondent, Respondent would have 30 days from the date of receipt of the transcript to submit Proposed Findings of Fact, thereby extending the date this Recommended Order is due by an additional 15 days.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times pertinent to the issues herein the Respondent, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, (Board), was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of interior designers in this state. The Petitioner, Anne C. Pepper, is and was an interior designer whose application for licensure as such in this state was denied by the Respondent under the provisions of Section 481.203(8), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida.

   
   

2. Petitioner, who is presently an employee of Jessup, Inc., an interior design firm, started her own design business, Weston House Interiors, in Connecticut in 1978. Her first project was a design of a floor plan for an apartment. During the early years of her practice, her work was primarily involved with floor planning and with selection of materials and colors. In 1980, however, she did a room for a show house in a designer showcase, also in Connecticut.

   
   

3. In 1982, prior to her move to Switzerland with her husband, Petitioner designed a kitchen which involved the destruction of the old kitchen and a remodeling and reconstruction of a new one in an 18th Century house in Connecticut. During this period, between 1978 and 1982, she took on clients who remain her clients to this day.

   
   

4. In 1982, she moved to Switzerland and, because of the work permit laws, while there could do only consulting work. In addition, however, she did independent study at museums and homes throughout Europe. On trips back to the Untied States, as will be seen later, she did take on work for clients which involved remodeling and reconstruction.

   
   

5. In December, 1985, she returned to New York and worked for a design firm, under another designer, and also took on clients of her own. In 1986, she was selected to do a room in the Junior League Design Showcase. This project was a small room, almost a closet, which she turned into a yacht berth bedroom. This project involved more than merely the selection of colors, fabrics, and furniture, but included the actual design of built in sleeping accommodations and storage.

6. In June, 1987, she was asked to come to Florida to Jessup, Inc.'s home office to see if she would like to live and work in the area. Due to the company's large resources and the opportunity this provided to work with the company's chief designer, she agreed to do so and has been doing design work for the firm ever since.

   
   

7. Mr. McGinnis, president of Jessup, Inc. and himself a licensed interior designer, has known Petitioner since 1985 when she came to the company's New York office. He and the firm, as well as all other interior designers excluding the Petitioner, are licensed by the state. However, Petitioner does the same work, to the same extent and with the same complexity, that all the other licensed designers with the firm do. Mr. McGinnis felt Petitioner was needed in Florida because of her exceptional talent.

   
   

8. As a part of her duties for the firm, Petitioner works with contractors, with architects, and with painters on the design and construction as well as the decoration of the facility upon completion. In one facility, the Bath Club, she performed all functions. In another project, a new residence, she designed all book casing and paneling, and did a redesign of hallways. She worked with the architect from the beginning of the construction on lighting and the placement of interior walls. In New York, while working for the firm, she did the design for the apartment she described previously, and in regards to her work with harmony House in 1989 and 1990, removed the kitchen and made it a combination kitchen/family room.

   
   

9. Mr. McGinnes emphasized that Petitioner does the same work as the other licensed interior designers with the firm and has done so since 1985 when employed by the firm in New York. As part owner of the firm, he frequently travelled to New York and observed the work Petitioner was doing.

   
   

10. The parties stipulated at the hearing that from the time Petitioner began working with Jessup, Inc. as an interior designer in December, 1985, and up to the present her work experience was of the type envisioned by the statute as qualifying interior design. The parties also agreed that the period from 1982 to 1985, when Petitioner was in Europe, cannot be considered as so qualifying. Therefore, the issue remains only as to that period of time prior to her departure for Europe, when she was in practice in Connecticut.

    
    

11. With regard, then, to the time in issue, Petitioner asserts that in 1978 and 1979 in Weston, Connecticut, she did work for the Cochranes involving a 19th Century house. She worked on the layout of the living room which, admittedly, involved no movement of walls. Nonetheless, she remodeled the family room to break through the north wall and put in a bay window, and installed built-in book cases on the south wall. She also removed electrical outlets to compensate for the other changes. On the second floor and elsewhere in the house, however, the work was primarily decorative. Nonetheless, the above described remodeling would constitute interior design.

    
    

12. When the Cochranes moved as the result of a fire prior to 1985, they again retained Petitioner to renovate the house. As a part of this job she changed the size of the dining room, designed a bathroom, and did some design work on the family room. Though this was done during the period of time she was a primary resident in Europe, nonetheless, the work on this renovation was accomplished on visits home from overseas and, notwithstanding the parties' agreement, mentioned earlier, as to the inapplicability of the period encompassed by the time in Europe, at least those times when she was back in this country would qualify and it is so found.

13. Petitioner was also involved in the remodeling of the dining room in a small home owned by the Ittners in 1978. As part of this work she changed the windows and the doorways; she put in a breeze way and designed a miniature garden room. When the Ittners moved, she worked in the kitchen of their new house to move cabinets and rearrange appliances.

    
    

14. In addition, in 1982, Petitioner worked with Mr. and Mrs. Kornfield in Connecticut on a late 19th Century house wherein she was involved in the fabrication of valances for window treatment and possibly installation of electrical units to accommodate a light fixture the owner had. She also designed furniture which was made to her specifications.

    
    

15. Through much of the early years, Petitioner worked out of her home in Connecticut and during this period, she was also taking courses at the University of Connecticut, Stamford, in the interior design department. In the early 1980's the majority of her business involved the remodeling of old homes and new construction additions to older homes. As a part of this,. she would study the job site and do sketches of her proposals. She then did on-site consultation with clients and contractors. Mr. Brett, of Stroheim and Rohmann, a fabrics house, recalls praise for her space planning, design elements and the like during that period.

    
    

16. Petitioner's work has changed very little in nature since she started in 1978 - only the magnitude of the projects and the volume has increased. Any increase in spectrum is related to the increase in experience, and this is to be expected.

    
    

17. Taken together, it would appear, and it is so found, that even from the very beginning, Petitioner's work, for the most part, consisted of projects containing those elements which amount to interior design as opposed to interior decoration.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

18. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter in this case. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

19. Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida, enacted by the Florida Legislature in 1989, provides in pertinent part:

    
    

    1. Any person who applies for licensure as a registered interior designer and remits the application and initial licensure fees by January 1, 1990, shall be licensed by the department without taking the written 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,

       ....

       
       

20. Section 481.203(8), Florida Statutes, defines "interior design as:

    
    

    ... design services which do not necessarily require performance by an architect, including consultations, studies, drawings, and specifications in connection with selected ceiling plans, space utilization, furnishings, or the fabrication of non-structural 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 performances by an architect.

    
    

21. The board has denied Petitioner's application for registration as an interior designer because, it claims, she has not demonstrated she has the proper experience as an "interior designer" during all of the six years immediately preceding her application. The Board has conceded that starting with her employment with Jessup, Inc. in December, 1985, her experience is appropriate, but disputes any experience prior to that time qualifies.

    
    

22. The burden of proof rests with the Petitioner to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that her prior interior design experience meets the requirements of the statute. Dealing specifically with that period extending from her entry into the field in 1978 up to her departure for Europe sometime in 1982, there is substantial evidence that her work falls within the qualifying experience. For example, Ms. Floeckher retained Petitioner to update an apartment in New York in either 1979 or 1980. The project entailed designing and installing a deck area and the interior of closets. She also did extensive remodeling of features in Mrs. Floeckher's new husband's house in Connecticut including the redesign of fireplaces and the lighting in the kitchen. In addition, in 1980 she designed the passageway for the show house in Connecticut which clearly involved far more than interior decorating. The letter from Mr. Brett, of Stroheim & Romann, Inc. a nationwide fabric house refers to Petitioner's attention to space planning, design elements, and her regard for detail in carpentry and other aspects of her practice. Her transformation of the closet to a yacht berth bedroom for the Junior League Showcase in 1980 is also clearly design more than decoration. This experience, all predating Petitioner's departure for Europe, and extending over the years from 1978 to 1980, clearly conforms to the requirements of the statute.

    
    

23. In addition, notwithstanding the fact that at hearing the Petitioner agreed that the time in Europe from 1982 to 1985 did not qualify, her testimony regarding the work she did for clients during periods of return to this country,

    which clearly constituted design rather than decoration, demonstrates that at least a portion of that time should be considered as qualifying.

    
    

24. Due to the absence of definitive evidence as to which months in which years prior to her employment with Jessup, Inc. contained the qualifying work, it is reasonably clear that for a good portion of 1978 through the beginning of 1982, a period of at least three and a half years, Petitioner was engaged in the bona fide practice of interior design. The Department has conceded that the period from December, 1985 through the present, when she worked with Jessup, Inc. qualifies. This is, through December, 1989, an additional four years.

Even excluding the European years, which cannot be discounted entirely, simple addition reveals more than the six years of interior design experience necessary to qualify for registration without examination under the grandfather provision of the statute. None of the work cited by Petitioner in support of her application was countered or rebutted in any way by the Department which presented no evidence.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore:

RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case granting the Petitioner, Anne C. Pepper, registration as an interior designer in Florida without examination.

RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida.

ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 3rd day of June, 1992.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER

The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case.

FOR THE PETITIONER:

None submitted.

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein.

   1. First portion accepted and incorporated herein. The conclusions drawn regarding the characterization of the work is rejected.

   2. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue.

   3. Accepted but, again, not dispositive.

   4. Not a Finding of Fact but argument on the nature of the evidence.

   5. Accepted, but complication of the project is not required to constitute interior design.

   6. This is not dispositive of any issue even if accepted. The work, though not done continuously, was definitely design.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Anne C. Pepper

333 Seaspray Avenue

Palm Beach, Florida 33480

John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

Jack McRay General Counsel

Department of Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Professional

Regulation/Board of Architecture and Interior Design

1940 North 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 consult with the agency which will issue the Final Order in this case concerning its rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency which will issue the Final Order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 92-000540

Orders for Case No: 92-000540