Jul 24 2009 9:35 JUL-24-2089 G9:30 From:65@ S2@1 @521 Pase:6/11 FILED Cepartment of Brings and Profesutiigd Repuldcitay Deputy Agency Clerk CLFRE Brandon Michols Date 3/19/2009 File # STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS FILED Florida Engineers Management Corporation FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL one ENGINEERS, Petitioner, v. FEMC Case Nos. 2007068)31 & 2007047569 JOHN D, HOLT, P.E., Respondent, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW the Florida Engineers Management Corporation (PEMC) on behal:’ of Petitioner, Florida Board of Professional Engineers, hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner,” and files this Administrative Complaint against JOIN D. LIOLT, P.L., hereinatter referred tc 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, Florida Board of Professional Engineers, is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to Chapter 455, Florida Siatutcs. This complaint is filed by the Florida Engineers Management Corporation (FEMC) on behalf of Petitioner. PEMC is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Florida Boarc. of Professional Engincers pursuant to Section 471.038, Florida Statutes (1997). Jul 24 2009 9:35 JUL-24-2869 69:38 From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page: 7/11 2. Respondent was, is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 15252. Respondent’s last known address is 925 Avure Avenue, West Palm Beach, FT. 33418. FEMC Case No. 2007068131 3. Respondent was retained by Jerry Heyn to perform an inspection on Heyn’s mobile home located in Fernandina Beach, FI. to determine whether said mobile home was U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) compliant. On September 6, 2006, Respondent signed and sealed a Memorandum in which he opined that the mobile home is “structurally sound and meets the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Handbook #007584 Permanent Foundation Guide for Manufactured Housing handbook 1995 and #4145,1 REV-2 Paragraph #3 & 4 tie down specitication/regulations,” 4, A separate ITUD report was completed by Roger B. Chewning, P.E. #21780, in anticipation of the sale of said mobile home. In Chewning’s November 30, 2007, signed and sealed Foundation Inspection Report, it was determined that a full upgrade was required to mect HUD guidelines: specitically all anchors must be galvanized and there needed to be approved stabilizer plates, new straps and approved beam clamps and longitudinal stabilization must be installed, 5. The Respondent’s September 6, 2006 Memorandum failed to meet minimum engineering standards in violation of 471.033(1)(g), F.S. in that accordance with HUD-0074487 requirements, preparation/submittal of foundation drawings and design calculations, or the Design Worksheet (Appendix F) were required and not provided by Respondent in order to demonstrate that the mobile home meets all HUD requirements. In addition, HUD-007487 designates Coastal and Inland regions pertaining to Wind Loads, and HUD-007487 further FRPH v John (9. Holt, P.F. Case Nos. 200706813 1 & 2007047569 Jul 24 2009 9:35 JUL-24-2869 89:31 From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page: 8711 indicates that galvanized rods or wire diagonal ties or straps shall be utilized with no provision permitting non-galvanized anchorage hardware, therefore not permitting Respondent to allow for non-galvanized straps to meet HUD standards. Bascd on the foregoing the Respondent is in violation of FS 471.033(1)(g), negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of engineering by cerlifying that the mobile home meets HUD foundation standards when it docs not, COUNTI 6. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through five (5) as if fully set forth in this Count I. 7. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471,033(1) (g), Florida Statutes, by engaging in misconduct in the practice of engineering. FEMC Case No. 2007047569 8. On May 4, 2006, A Final Order was filed in FEMC Case No. 2005048785 requiring Respondent, among other items, to provide at the nine (9) month interval from the date of the filing of the Final Order, (February 4, 2007) a list of projects completed during said nine (9) month interval. 9. On February 12, 2007, Respondent, through his counsel, provided a list of projects meant to satisfy this component of the Final Order. 10. On November 16, 2006, Respondent signed and sealed a single sheet plan for the Tiki Waterfront Sea Grill Project (“Tiki Grill Project’) to be located at Riviera Beach, Florida. Ul. = The Tiki Grill Project was not included in the February 12, 2007 list of all completed projects by the Respondent in the previous nine month period in question. FBPE v. John D. Holt, P.E. Case Nos. 2007068131 & 2007047569 Jul 24 2009 9:35 JUL-24-2869 89:31 From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page: 9711 12, The Tiki Grill Project single sheet plan did not meet minimum acceptable engineering standards as the plan contained numerous deficiencies, including: a. The plan sheet omitted many items, amongst the missing items, (1.) framing component lumber grade & specics. (2.) corrosive resistance specification of fasteners & metal components. (3.) metal roof specifications, (4,) plan or elevation view of column, base connection to foundation. (5.) foundation specifications. (6.) connectivity or load path and uplift resistance requirements for host connection at log purlin, log rafters, log edge beam to log post. (7.) screws specifications used at Simpson connectors. b, The thickness of the roof panels is ambiguous on the plan. The section view specifies the metal roof as 26 gage while Detail C shows the decking gage as 20. €. The design criterion on the drawing shows the use of ASCE7-98, The December 2005 amendment to the Florida Building Code requires the use of ASCE7-02. d. The Florida Building Code designates wind exposure category C as follows: FBC 1609.4 Exposure Category. [sub-paragraph #3] Exposure C means, except in the high-velocity hurricane zone, that area which lies within 1,500 feet (46 m) of the coastal construction control line, or within 1,500 feet (46 m) of the mean high tide line, whichever is less. . . FBPE v. John D. Holt, PE. Case Nos. 2007068131 & 2007047569 Jul 24 2009 9:36 JUL-24-2869 89:31 From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page: 1@-11 This structure was classified by the Respondent on the plan as wind exposure B instead of the required classification, exposure C. Exposure C was required because of the structure’s close proximity (within 1,500 ft) to the Intracoastal Waterway and the fact that the structure is surrounderl on the other three sides by parking lots. COUNT HI 13. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) and two (2) and eight (8) through twelve (12) as if fully sei forth in this Count II. 14, Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1) (g), Florida Statutes, by engaging in misconduct in the practice of engineering. COUNT IN 15. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) and two (2) and eight (8) through twelve (12) as if fully set forth in this Count II. 16. Respondent failed to include the Tiki Grill project in his February 12, 2007, submittal to FEMC as required by the Final Order filed on May 4,2006, By failing to ecmply with the requirements imposed upon his license under the terms of the Final Order in the manner sel forth in this administrative complaint, Respondent has violated provisions of Section 471.033(1)(k), F.8., and Rule 61G15-19.001(6)(0), F.A.C., 17, Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1) (k), F.8., and Rule 61G13-19.001(6)(0), F.A.C., by violating and failing to comply with terms of a Final Order entered by the Board of Professional Engineers, WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests the Board of Professional Engineers to enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties: permanent revocation or FRPE v. John 1). Holt, PE Case Nox 207068131 4 2007047569 Jul 24 2009 9:36 JUL-24-2869 89:31 From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page:li-ii 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 probatioa, 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_[ 2 LY, day of : /4 arch 2009, Carrie Flynn Executive Director “Patrick Creehan Prosecuting Attorney COUNSEL FOR FEMC: Patrick Creehan Prosecuting Altormey Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Florida Bar No. 0063540 PCH PCP DATE: March 17, 2009 PCP Members: Rebanc, Charland, Halyard CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was furnished to John D. Holt, PE., c/o Barry W. Taylor, Esq., 900 East Indiantown Road, Suite 302, Jupiter, FL 33477 a certified mail, on the of ABA, 2009. Oy— FBPE v. John D. Holt, P.E. Case Nos. 2007068131 & 2007047369

Docket for Case No: 09-003958PL