STATE OF FLORIDA = FLORIDA ENGINEERS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION a Age F _ 4 FLORIDA ENGINEERS - MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, = . WO Petitioner, 4 v. FEMC Case No. 00-0082 CHARLES N. JOHNSON, P.E., Respondent. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW the Florida Engineers Management Corporation, hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner,” and files this Administrative Complaint before the Board of Professional Engineers against Charles N. Johnson, P.E., hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”. This Administrative Complaint is issued pursuant to Sections 120.60 and 471.038, Florida Statutes. Any proceeding conceming this complaint shall be conducted pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. In support of this complaint, Petitioner alleges the following: 1. Petitioner is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to Chapter 455, Florida Statutes and Chapter 471, Florida Statutes. 2. Respondent is and has been at all time material hereto a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 1 42236. Respondent’s last known address is 64 Aqua Lane, North Ft. Myers, Florida | 33903. Ol- Ho MARL ns 3. On February 15, 2000, Respondent signed and sealed drawings for a single family residence located in Englewood, Florida. The plans were submitted to the County of Charlotte, Community Development Department for permitting. 4. On April 28, 2000, the Plans Examiner completed a Plan Review Correction List. The Plans Examiner found that the structure was not designed in accordance with the Subpart A ~ Requirements for Flood Plain Management Regulation ~ 60.3 Flood Plain Management criteria for flood-prone areas. These corrections were requested prior to re-submittal. 5. On June 9, 2000, the Plans Examiner completed a second Plan Review Correction List. The Plans Examiner requested that Respondent review his original comments from the April 28, 2000, Plan Review Correction List, and also requested that Respondent perform additional investigations. 6. Respondent’s plans fail to conform to acceptable engineering standards. COUNT ONE 7. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through six (6) as if fully set forth herein this Count One. 8. The drawings for the Rose Residence contained several deficiencies including, but not limited to, the following: a. On April 7, 2000, Respondent signed and sealed a fifth Sheet created by Cox Lumber using a Trus Joist Macmillan computer program (TJ-Xpert) , which show a partial roof framing plan. Respondent added the following certification: “Reviewed for uplift”. Respondent’s limited certification is insufficient. b. Sheets 3 and 4 and the roof members specified differ from what is shown on the fifth sheet. . c. The roof system shown on the fifth sheet requires support of the “ridge beam at the front and rear beating walls at an intermediate support dependent on two columns by others (CBO). There is no indication on Sheets 1 through 4 to indicate that the need for this support has been recognized or addressed. d. Section BB on Sheet Four shows a 3’ -0” roof overhang but the fifth sheet shows no overhang. e. Drawings 1 through 4 lack sufficient clarity and detail to permit a meaningful structural analysis or to provide adequate guidance to a builder. f. Sheet 4 states that the structure was designed in accordance with ANSI/ASCE 7-95, minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, Section 6, to withstand the wind loads associated with a minimum basic wind speed of 110 miles per hour. This statement is in error in that Respondent understated wind loads by assuming a ‘basic wind speed of 10 ) mph for Port Charlotte and by failing to recognize that the structure was in Exposure D, rather than Exposure C, as calculated by Respondent. 9. Respondent’s plans for the Rose Residence fail to conform to acceptable engineering standards. 10. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. COUNT TWO TWO ie Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraph one a) through six (6) as . if fully set forth herein this Count Two. 12. On February 10, 2000, Rose Residence revisions were made to Sheets One through Four dated January 11, 2000, by M. Tracy, an unlicensed engineer. 13. On April 7, 2000, the Respondent signed and dated Sheet Five, a partial roof framing plan by Cox Lumber using a Trus Joist MacMillan computer program. 14. Respondent’s limited certification note “reviewed for uplift” is insufficient. As Structural Engineer of Record, he is responsible for all aspects of the structural design and cannot properly delegate any portion of that responsibility to anyone other than another engineer. 14. | Respondent improperly delegated responsibility to someone other than another engineer. 15. Based on the foregoing Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by violating Rule 61G15-31.0003, Florida Administrative Code. COUNT THREE 16. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraph one (1) through six (6) as if fully set forth herein this Count Three. 17. The drawings for the Merchant Residence contained several deficiencies including but not limited to the following: a. On April 7, 2000, Respondent signed and sealed a fifth Sheet , created by Cox Lumber using a Trus Joist Macmillan computer program (TJ-Xpert) which show partial roof framing plan. Respondent added the following certification: “Reviewed for uplift.” Respondent’s limited certification is insufficient | | b. The roof system on the fifth sheet is dependent on a supported ridge beam but there is nothing on Sheets One through Four indicating that the need for support for that beam has been recognized or addressed. c. Sheet Four shows typical 2’-0” roof overhang but the fifth sheet shows no overhang. d. The 11’-6” high studs (2x4) @ 16” 0.c.) shown on the typical Section on Sheet Four can safely resist Code specified wind loads only if special lumber is specified (e.g., Select Structural Southern Pine) but no specification has been provided. e. Drawings 1 through 4 lack sufficient clarity and detail to permit a meaningful structural analysis or to provide adequate guidance to a builder. 18. | Respondent’s drawings for the Merchant Residence fail to conform to acceptable engineering standards. 19. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. COUNT FOUR 20. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through six (6) as if fully set forth herein this Count Three. 21. Respondent's wind load calculations contained several deficiencies including but not limited to the following: a. Respondent’s statement in the plans that the wind load calculations are in compliance and accordance with ASCE 7-95 to meet the ‘requirements of 1606 of the 1997 Standard Building Code for 110 mph wind zone is in error. Leer oe b. Section 1606.2 of the 1997 Standard Building Code assumes a fastest mile wind speed as shown in figure 1606. For Port Charlotte, Florida 110 mph would be a conservative assumption. The modifying factors specified in 1606.2 are meaningless unless related to wind intensities related to the fastest mile velocity. c. ASCE 7-95 has introduced a change in the method of measuring basic wind speeds. That measurement is now based on a three second gust (the shorter the measurement interval, the higher the maximum velocity), The modifying factors specified in ASCE 7-95 are likewise meaningless unless related to wind intensities measured by a three second gust. d. Basic wind speeds are shown in Figure 6-1 of ASCE 7-95. For Port Charlotte, Florida a velocity of 135 mph would be a reasonable assumption and 140 mph would be conservative. e. Respondent understated wind loads by 50 percent by assuming a basic wind speed of 110 mph for Port Charlotte, and by failing to recognize that the structure was sited in Exposure D, rather than Exposure C, as calculated by Respondent. f. Respondent failed to show the distinction between design wind speeds as determined by fastest mile velocities and three second gust velocities. 22. | Respondent’s wind load calculations fail to conform to acceptable engineering standards. 23. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests the Board of Professional Engineers to enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties: permanent ome revocation or suspension of the Respondent’s license, restriction of the Respondent’s practice, imposition of an administrative fine, issuance of a reprimand, placement of the Respondent on probation, the assessment of costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case, other than costs associated with an attorney’s time, as provided for in Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes, and/or any other relief that the Board deems appropriate. SIGNED this \* day of Wy Natalie Lowg , 2001. COUNSEL FOR FEMC: Douglas D. Sunshine : F | L E D la E ngineers Mana: e: t ¢ “Det tment of i Pi essional Regulation i i i t of Business and Professi 12 gemen' orporation pa Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Florida Bar No. 935263 DDS/tb CLERK Sona pf. (ous om PCP: March 14,2001 | oe | PCP Members: Rebane and Seckinger === DAT

Docket for Case No: 01-002674PL