STATE OF FLORIDA “ho DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION nero add DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND ‘ PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, 2 . TEY vs. DBPR Case No.: 2000-03544 ALVAH PAUL BREITWEISER, Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ("Petitioner"), files this Administrative Complaint before the Board of Architecture and Interior Design against ALVAH PAUL BREITWEISER, ("Respondent"), and says: 1. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of architecture pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 481, Florida Statutes. 2. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed architect in the State of Florida, having been issued license number AR 0004893. 3. Respondent's address of record is 892 Dean Way, Fort Myers, Florida 33919. 4, On or about October 20, 1997, Respondent and Karl Gaiser (“Gaiser”), entered into an agreement with Forest Oaks Lutheran Church to act as architects for a project which involved a new sanctuary and offices. 5. On the Forest Oaks Lutheran Church project , Respondent and Gaiser did not execute a written agreement between themselves regarding each parties responsibility in violation of Rule 61G1-23.015(2), Administrative Code. 6. Gaiser is not a licensed to practice architecture in the State of Florida. 7. On or about May 14. 1999, Respondent signed and sealed the Architectural Index and Cover Sheet of the Permit Drawings. The Index Sheet lists all disciplines. Correspondingly, Respondent is considered to have signed, dated, and sealed all architectural. structural. plumbing, air-conditioning and electrical sheets iacluded in the Permit Drawings. 8. Respondent did pot supervise the preparation of the aforementioned plans and drawings. 9. The aforementioned plans and drawings were prepared outside of Respondent's office. 10. The Respondent has adopted the aforementioned plans as his own work and thereby accepted professional responsibility for the aforementioned plans. 11. The Respondent functioned as essentially a “plan stamper” for Gaiser’s plans, since Gaiser is not licensed to practice architecture in the State of Florida. 12. In certifying the aforementioned plans and drawings, the Respondent was certifying that they were sound from an engineering standpoint as well as from an architectural standpoint. 13. The Respondent is not qualified to determine whether plans are sound from an engineering standpoint. 14. In preparation of the architectural and structural drawings contained in the Permit Drawings, Respondent was negligent in that he failed to exercise due care to conform acceptable standards of architectural practice in such a manner as to be detrimental to the public. The structural drawings were deficient in the following areas: a. Light gage framing has been indicated but not adequately defined. Essential information including required yield strength, flange length and lip length have not been specified. b. Even under reasonable and favorable assumptions, studs in excess of 38 feet in length in the southwest wall of the Nave will be overstressed under assumed wind loads. c. Even under reasonable and favorable assumptions, the deflection to be anticipated under assumed wind loads on studs longer than 24 feet will be in excess of 1/240 of the. span length contrary to the requirements of Table 1610.1 of the Standard Building Code. d. Even under reasonable and favorable assumptions, track sections are unable to safely transfer uplift loads imposed by assumed wind velocities to anchor bolts in thos”. portions of walls where the tributary wind area exceeds about 14 sq. ft. per ft. of wall length. e. Structural steel tube sections forming the members of the frame Slippy hatoag | window in the southwest wall of the Nave have not been properly defined in that Us. icquired yield strength (46 or 50 psi) has not been specified. f. Regardless of the yield strength provided, the vertical tube sections forming the frame supporting the window in the southwest wall of the Nave, those members will be overstressed under assumed wind velocities. g. The anticipated deflection of the vertical tube sections forming the frame supporting the window in the southwest under assumed wind velocities will grossly exceed the limit of 1/240 of the span imposed by Table 1610.1 of the Standard building Code. h. The attachment at the top of the vertical tube sections forming the frame Supporting the windows in the southwest wall of the Nave has not been adequately defined in that a minimum penctration length for the lag bolts has not been specified. i. Even assuming an adequate penetration depth, the lag bolts at the top of the vertical tube sections forming the frame supporting the windows in the southwest wall of the Nave are grossly inadequate to safely resist the lateral toad imposed on them under the assumed wind velocity. 15. Petitioner hereby realieges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through fourteen (14) as if fully set forth herein. 16. Section 481.225(1)(g), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part that committing any act of fraud, deceit, negligence, in competency. or misconduct in the practice of architecture constitutes grounds for disciplinary action. 17. Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 481.225(1)(g), Florida Statutes by signing and sealing plans that do not conform to acceptable standards of architectural practice. COUNT IT 18. Petitioner hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through fourteen (14) as if fully set forth herein. 19. Section 481.225(1)(a), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part that violating 1; provision of Section 455.227(1), Florida Statutes, constitutes grounds for disciplinary action. 20. Section 455.227(1)(o), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part that practicing or offering to practice beyond the Scope permitted by law or accepting and performing professional responsibilities the licensee knows, or has reason to know, the licensee is not competent to perform constitutes grounds for disciplinary action. 21. Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 48 1.225(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by violating Section 455.227(1)(0). Florida Statutes, by certifying work that was beyond his ability to perform. COUNT UT 22. Petitioner hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through fourteen (14) as if fully set forth herein. 23. Section 481.221(4), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part that no registered architect shall affix her or his signature or seal to any final construction document or instrument of service which includes drawings, pians, specifications, or architectural documents which were not prepared by her or him or under her or his responsible supervising control or by another registered architect and reviewed, approved, or modified and adopted by her or him as her + his own work according to rules adopted by the board. 24, Rule 61G1-23.015(2), Administrative Code, requires the architect to maintain written documentation that the architect has personally supervised the preparation of all documents and instruments of service. reviewed al! project data, personally inspected the project site and entered into a written agreement with the persons preparing the documents accepting professional responsibility for such work. 25, Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 481.221(4), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G1-23.015, Administrative Code, by improperly certifying work prepared by another. COUNT IV 26, Petitioner hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through fourteen (14) as if fully set forth herein. 27. Section 481.221(2), Florida Statutes. states in pertinent part that no registered architect shall affix, or permit to be affixed. her or his seal or signature to any final construction document or instrument of service which includes any plan, specification, drawing or other document which depicts work which she or he is not competent to perform. 28. Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 481.221(2), Florida Statutes, by certifying work that was beyond his ability to perform. 29. Petitioner hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through fourteen (14) as if fully set forth herein, 30. Section 481.225(1)(i), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part that no registered architect shall aid, assist, procure, or advise any unlicensed person to practice architevfire contrary to this part or to a rule of the department or the board. 31. Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 481.225(1)03, Motch, Statutes, by assisting Gaiser in his performance of unlicensed activity contrary to Chapter 4181, Florida Statutes. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests the Board enter an Order imposing one or more of the following penalties: Imposition of probation, reprimand the licensee, revoke, suspend, deny the issuance or renewal of the certificate or registration, require financial restitution to a consumer, impose an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000 per count, require continuing education, assess costs associated with investigation and prosecution, impose any or all penalties delineated within Section 455.227(2), Florida Statutes, and/or any other relief that the Board is authorized to impose pursuant to Chapters 481 and 455, Florida Statutes, and/or the rules promulgated thereunder. ~ t Signed this «7 dayof_Dmave- 7 2003. or DAVID K. MINACCI | L v Regulation Smith, Thompson, Shaw & Manausa, P.A. re and profession 2075 Centre Pointe Blvd. Deparment o puTY RI Tallahassee, Fl 32308-4893 Sicha Florida Bar No. 0056774 ' Phone No. (850) 402-1570 cere YM a 2003 Fax No. (850) 402.1508 DATE pep : \-\'7- 2003

Docket for Case No: 03-001988