Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner sat for the certification examination for general contractors administered on May 18, 1994. The contract administration portion of the examination consisted of 40 questions. The first twenty questions were worth four points each. The remaining twenty questions were worth one point apiece. To pass this portion of the examination, a total of 70 points was needed. Question 21 of this portion of the examination was a multiple choice question which required the candidate to identify factors which, according to the "Building Estimators Reference Book," should be taken into consideration in estimating the cost of erecting tubular steel scaffolding. According to the "Building Estimators Reference Book," the cost of erecting tubular steel scaffolding "depend[s] on many conditions: the type of job to be done, whether interior or exterior; ground conditions; height and width, as well as load to be carried; and length of time it will be in use." Accordingly, the correct answer to Question 21 was clearly "B." Petitioner selected answer "A," which included "wire rope block size" as one of the factors needed to be considered in estimating the cost of erecting tubular steel scaffolding. Wire rope block, however, is used in suspended scaffolding, not in tubular steel scaffolding. Petitioner's answer to question 21 therefore was clearly incorrect. Question 31 of the contract administration portion of the May 18, 1994, certification examination was also a multiple choice question. It required the candidate to select the number of days within which, according to the "American Institute of Architects' Document A401" (AIA-A401), a contractor must make a progress payment to a subcontractor following the contractor's receipt of payment from the owner. Section 11.3 of AIA-A401 provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]he Contractor shall pay the Subcontractor each progress payment within three working days after the Contractor receives payment from the Owner." Accordingly, the correct answer to Question 31 was clearly "B." Petitioner's answer to the question was "C," which was clearly incorrect. Petitioner erroneously based this answer upon Section 4.7 of AIA-A401, 1/ which addresses the subject of "remedies for nonpayment" and does not, unlike Section 11.3 of that document, specify the time frame within which the contractor must pay the subcontractor.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the contract administration portion of the certification examination for general contractors for which he sat on May 18, 1994. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of October, 1994. STUART M. LERNER 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 19th day of October, 1994.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, August T. Nocella, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board (Board), is the agency within Pinellas County, Florida, authorized under Chapter 89-504, Laws of Florida, as amended, to regulate and discipline the licenses of, among others, certified aluminum contractors. Respondent, August T. Nocella (Respondent), is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified aluminum contractor in Pinellas County, Florida, having been issued license C-3197. At times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was doing business as Allied Aluminum, located in St. Petersburg, Florida. In 1997, Ms. Mary J. Pugh had a small screened porch added to her house located at 12855 Gorda Circle West. Approximately two years later, in July 1999, the porch was damaged or destroyed by a storm. Thereafter, Ms. Pugh requested and received a proposal from Allied Aluminum to repair or rebuild the screened porch. On September 1, 1999, Respondent entered into a contract with Ms. Pugh to repair or reconstruct the previously existing screened porch. The contract provided that Respondent would install a new aluminum roof to replace the damaged existing screened porch roof, install gutters and trim, replace 13 feet of valance, replace the screen, and install a new wall front. The contract noted that a riser wall was required for "proper roof pitch." The contract price was $2,300.00, with $1,000.00 to be paid as a down payment and the remaining $1,300.00 to be paid upon completion of the project. Ms. Pugh paid Allied Aluminum in accordance with the terms of the contract. She made the first payment of $1,000.00 on September 1, 1999, and made the final payment of $1,300.00 on September 22, 1999, upon Respondent's completing the job. On or about September 16, 1999, Respondent obtained a permit for the repair or reconstruction of the screened porch at Ms. Pugh's house. Respondent began the project on or about September 15, 1999, and completed the job on September 22, 1999. Section 105.6 of the Standard Building Code, 1997 Edition, as amended,(Standard Building Code) requires local building officials, "upon notification from the permit holder or his agent," to make a final inspection of a building after the building is completed and ready for occupancy. In order to comply with the Standard Building Code, it was the responsibility of the permit holder, in this case, Respondent, to call local officials for a final building inspection. Upon completion of the inspection, a building official would then notify the permit holder of "any violations which must be corrected in order to comply with the technical codes." Respondent failed to notify building officials that the Pugh project was completed and ready for occupancy and, thus, ready for final inspection by appropriate building officials. As a result of Respondent's failure to call for a final inspection, building officials never inspected Respondent's work on Ms. Pugh's screened porch and made no determination as to whether the project complied with the applicable technical codes. In July 2000, during a storm, the roof of Ms. Pugh's screen porch collapsed. Relying on statements of unnamed contractors, Ms. Pugh believes that the roof collapsed because it did not have the proper pitch. Respondent attributes the collapse of the roof to the gutters being blocked with leaves. Despite these assertions no evidence was presented at hearing to establish the cause of the roof's collapsing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a final order: (1) finding that Respondent failed to obtain a satisfactory inspection as alleged in Count One, and is guilty of the offenses described in Chapter 89-504, Subsections 24, (2)(d), (j), and (n), Laws of Florida; (2) imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for the foregoing offenses; and (3) dismissing Count Two of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Don Crowell, Esquire Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 310 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Rodney S. Fischer, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road Suite 102 Largo, Florida 33773-5116 August T. Nocella 1017 Robinson Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent has been disciplined by a local government, the City of Tampa, in violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witness and his demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence presented and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found: During times material hereto, Respondent was a licensed contractor in Florida, having been issued license number CG C006397. Petitioner is the State agency charged with regulating the construction industry in Florida. On May 5, 1987, Respondent was disciplined by the Unified Construction Trades Board of the City of Tampa, and thereafter, on August 13, 1987, Respondent's license was revoked based on the determination that Respondent was guilty of violating City of Tampa codes. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2.). Respondent's disciplinary action by the City of Tampa was reviewed by Petitioner and based on the May 5, 1987 suspension of Respondent's license, Petitioner found probable cause against Respondent on June 11, 1987. As stated, Respondent failed to appear to contest or otherwise refute the fact that the Unified Construction Trades Board of Tampa took disciplinary action against his license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner's certified general contractor's license number CG C006397 be suspended for a period of one (1) year from the entry of the Board's final order. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 31st day of March, 1989.
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a Certified General Contractor should be suspended or revoked, or the licensee otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, as set for the in the Administrative Complaint dated July 17, 1981. This case arises from an administrative complaint filed by the Department of Professional Regulation, seeking to take disciplinary action against Respondent Lawrence M. Stoner, a certified general contractor, for alleged derelictions in connection with the construction and subsequent collapse of a condominium at Cocoa Beach, Florida in March, 1981. Although this case was consolidated for hearing with the case of Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board v. Bruce Alles, Case No. 81-2057, the parties announced at the commencement of the hearing that they had elected to hear this case separately. This case was originally noticed for hearing to be held on November 2, 1981. Petitioner filed a motion for continuance of the hearing on October 23, 1981 based on additional information that had been received subsequent to the filing of the Administrative Complaint. However, the matters sets forth in the motion were not considered to constitute good cause for continuance and the motion was denied. The petition alleges that although a firm named Univel, Inc. entered into a contract with another company, Palm Harbor West, Inc. to construct the condominium project in question, Univel hired Respondent to pull the building permit in the name of the corporation for which he was the qualifying agency, Dynamic Construction Company, Inc. It further alleges that Univel supervised the construction of the building and that Respondent exercised no such function. Further, it alleges that Univel supervised the construction of the building and that Respondent exercised no such function. Further, it is stated that the building collapsed in March, 1981 killing eleven persons and injuring twenty- three others, and that violations of the Southern Standard Building Code in the improper placement of steel rebars in columns, and inadequate thicknesses of floor slabs contributed to the collapse. Thus, the petition alleges grounds for disciplinary action against Respondent for acting as a contractor in the name of another, failing to notify Petitioner of his affiliation with another business organization, and failure to supervise the project. It also predicates discipline upon willful or deliberate disregard in violation of the applicable building codes in covering reinforcing steel without an inspection and deviating from approved plans and drawings. In his answer to the complaint, Respondent averred that pursuant to an agreement between his firm and Univel, Inc., his services were provided to Univel to serve as the general contractor for the project and that he did so, exercising proper supervision over construction, and that the building was built according to its engineering plans and drawings and applicable codes. The parties entered into a pre-trial statement of the issues as follows: Was there a duty under Florida Statutes 49.119(3)(b) for LAWRENCE M. STONER to notify the Department of Professional Regulation that he intended to affiliate with Univel, Inc. to do the Harbor Cay job? Did LAWRENCE M STONER act in the capacity of a contractor under any name other than the names set forth in his contractor's certificate? Did LAWRENCE M STONER have a duty to supervise and be responsible for the Harbor Cay project and, if so, did he supervise it and was responsible for that job? Did LAWRENCE M STONER willfully or deliberately disregard Section 108.2 of the Southern Standard Building Code by covering steel in concrete columns on the Harbor Cay job prior to inspection, or did he willfully and deliberately disregard Section 114 of the Southern Standard Building Code by failing to follow plans and specifications calling for an eight inch slab thickness and/or by improperly placing the steel rebar in the concrete columns? At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of fourteen witnesses and submitted fourteen exhibits in evidence. Respondent called three witnesses and submitted five exhibits. Respondent's Exhibit 5 is a late-filed exhibit received by agreement of the parties. A Proposed Recommended Order filed by the Petitioner and Respondent's Summation have been fully considered and those portions thereof which have not been adopted herein are considered to be either unnecessary, irrelevant, or unsupported in law or fact.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Lawrence M. Stoner, is a certified general contractor holding license numbers CG C005313 and CG CA05313, and was so licensed at all time pertinent to this proceeding. He is the qualifying agent for Dynamic Construction Company, Inc., and Atlantic Contracting, Inc., Cocoa Beach, Florida (Testimony of Respondent, pleadings, Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Respondent has been the president of Dynamic Construction Company, Inc. since 1973. He formed Atlantic Contracting, Inc. in 1980, but it has been inactive and has never done business as a general contractor. Respondent is the sole employee of Dynamic Construction Company, Inc. Dynamic occupies one office in the offices of Univel, Inc., a general contracting firm in Cocoa Beach, Florida. Dynamic does not pay rent for the office, does not display company signs, nor does it have a telephone in its name. For the past three or four years, Dynamic has been associated with Univel according to an arrangement between Respondent and Kenneth Alles, Vice President of Univel, whereby Dynamic provided Respondent's services to Univel for the general supervision of construction projects. Under their oral agreement, the owner of a particular project would pay Dynamic a weekly sum through Univel for Respondent's services, and bonuses upon completion of a particular job for good performance. Respondent and Alles considered this arrangement to constitute a joint venture between the two general contracting firms. During the period Respondent was affiliated with Univel, he devoted his full time to its work which consisted of about a dozen projects. After approximately the first year of their association, Respondent began pulling the construction permits for the various jobs in the name of Dynamic Construction Company, Inc. Univel had a certified general contractor, David Boland, as its qualifying agent during that period until some time in late 1979. Additionally, Bruce Alles, a certified general contractor who is the son of Kenneth Alles, became a qualifying agent for Univel in the summer of 1979, but was inactive from about April, 1980 to April, 1981. In fact, from the time he became the qualifying agent, Bruce Alles did not perform any work as general contractor for Univel except one small remodeling job. Respondent has been in the construction business for approximately twenty years. The records of the Construction Industry Licensing Board fail to reflect that Respondent ever applied to be a qualifying agent for Univel, Inc., nor did he ever inform the Board of any intended affiliation with that firm. (Testimony of Respondent, K. Alles, B. Alles, Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 8) On November 1, 1980, Univel, Inc. entered into a contract with Palm Harbor West, Inc., whereby Univel agreed to construct a 118-unit condominium project to be known as Harbour Cay Condominiums at Cocoa Beach, Florida. The work was to be conducted in three phases, the first phase consisting of 45 units, the second 55 units and certain villas, and a third phase consisting of 18 villas. Completion of the work was scheduled for April 30, 1982. The contractual cost of the Phase I portion of the project was set forth in the contract as $2,283,670, including a contractor's fee of 12% of such cost. The contract provided that payment of the contractor's fee was contingent upon provisions for payment of Towne Realty, Inc. under a separate agreement between that firm, Palm Harbor West, Inc., Ken Alles, and Scott Alles. Article 16 of the contract provided that each party shall approve the cost of the other to be charged to the project and in the event one party objected to such cost, the objecting party should be allowed to substitute its subcontractor, personnel or material supplier at a lesser cost, provided it did not delay completion of the project. On February 27, 1981, Dynamic and respondent as "Contractor" entered into an agreement with Palm Harbor West, Inc., Kenneth Alles, individually, and other corporations as "Developers" wherein it was agreed that the "Developers" would hold the "Contractor" harmless from third party claims arising from work performed by the Developers; personnel or agents on various projects, including Harbour Cay. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Respondent's Exhibit 5, Testimony of K. Alles) On October 28, 1980, Respondent applied to the City of Cocoa Beach, Florida for a building permit in the name of Dynamic Construction Company, to construct a five-story, 45-unit condominium whose owner was listed as Palm Harbor west. The listed project name was "Harbour Cay" and the architect or engineer was shown to be William Juhn. The building department, City of Cocoa Beach, issued the requested permit number B5263 on December 5, 1980. Permit conditions included the statement "All construction shall conform to the Southern Standard Building Code and other requirements of the City of Cocoa Beach, Florida." (Testimony of Respondent, Straub, Petitioner's Exhibits 7, 11) By Ordinance No. 608, dated October 18, 1979, the City of Cocoa Beach adopted the Standard Building Code as promulgated by the Southern Standard Building Congress International in 1979. Section 1601 of the Standard Building Code provides that all structures of reinforced concrete shall be designed and constructed in accordance with he provisions of Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, ACI 318 issued by the American Concrete Institute. Although Section 114 of the Standard Building Code purports to make it a misdemeanor for any person to violate the code or construct a building in violation of a detailed statement or drawing submitted and approved under the code, the Cocoa Beach Building Code, Article 1, Section 6-3 provides for penalties under a separate city ordinance for violating provisions of the standard building code or of the city building code. (Testimony of Straub, Petitioner's Exhibits 5B-C, 6, 14) Section 106.5 of the Standard Building Code provides that whenever the work to be covered by a permit involves construction under conditions which, in the opinion of the building official, are hazardous or complex, the building official shall require that the architect or engineer who signed the affidavit, or made the drawings or computations, shall supervise such work and be responsible for its conformity with the approved drawings. Pursuant to this provision, the building official of Cocoa Beach determined that the Harbour Cay project was complex and that he did not have sufficient personnel to provide inspection services. Accordingly, he made arrangements with Respondent and the owner's representative at the site, Jack Bennett, to have the project's structural design engineer, Harold Meeler, perform such services and provide daily inspection reports to the City. Meeler assumed such functions under an oral agreement with Univel, Inc. He had either inspected or assisted city inspectors to inspect all Univel projects since 1977. (Testimony of Straub, Meeler, Respondent's Exhibit 4) Two field superintendents supervised the on-site work at the Harbour Cay project One of these, Fred W. Rustman, was employed by Univel, Inc. and had fifty years experience. The other field superintendent was Patrick T. Alles, brother of Kenneth Alles, who was employed as a site superintendent by Towne Realty, Inc. a firm which owned Palm Harbor West, Inc. His immediate supervisor was Jack Bennett, also employed by Towne Realty, Inc., who served as the "owner's representative." Alles' function was to supervise the concrete and form work, and Rustman coordinated the balance of the job and approved vendor's bills. Rustman looked upon Bennett and Kenneth Alles as his immediate supervisors. Bennett primarily did office work such as pricing, insurance matters, time schedules, and the like. He described himself as the "anchor man" of the project who could always contact the other supervisory personnel because he stayed in place. Bennett conferred with Respondent on a daily basis and was of the view that Respondent had ultimate responsibility for the project because he was the general contractor. Kenneth Alles felt that he had ultimate responsibility for construction decisions for Univel, Inc. on the project, but looked to Respondent as having ultimate overall construction responsibility. (Testimony of Rustman, Bennett, K. Alles, Henderson, Petitioner's Exhibit 12, Respondent's Exhibit 1) Respondent's functions with respect to the Harbour Cay project were varied. Although he relied upon the field superintendents for immediate supervision of construction, he conferred with them periodically for resolution of problems. Ordinarily, general contractors do not perform immediate supervisory functions at the construction site. Respondent reviewed subcontractor bids and recommended awards to be made by Univel, Inc. Univel, Inc. supplied construction personnel for the project. Respondent arranged for rental of equipment, and coordinated with the project engineers, architect, and city officials. He approved payments to subcontractors, and ensured the payment of other bills submitted by suppliers which had been approved by the field superintendents. Problems that arose were usually resolved by joint decisions of Bennett, Kenneth Alles, and Respondent. Respondent's office was approximately 1,000 yards from the job site and he made it a practice to visit the site at least three times a week. (Testimony of Respondent, K. Alles, Bennett, Rustman, Lilley) Harold Meeler conducted frequent inspections of the project and rendered periodic reports reflecting such progress, commencing with garage construction in October, 1980. He was not aware of the identity of the general contractor and generally dealt with Bennett and the field superintendents. His general practice was to inspect in the late afternoon and dictate his reports in a tape recorder on site. The reports were later transcribed and submitted to Bennett. The city building officials expected these reports to be rendered on a weekly basis to him, but they were frequently slow in reaching his office. None of the reports included any indication of construction deficiencies, but merely related when the various construction stages had been completed. Testimony of Meeler, Bennett, Rustman, Straub, Respondent's Exhibit 3) The construction schedule followed at the Harbour Cay site was to prepare reinforcing steel bars for the columns on Mondays and Wednesdays by securing them with steel stirrups on the ground. They were then placed in position within the forms for the columns. Although the specifications and drawings did not show how to place the bars, the number per column ranged from 4 to 8 bars as called for in the design specifications. It was noted by the reinforcing steel subcontractor that the columns were too narrow to adequately space 4 bars per column. However, the only way in which they could be and were placed was to align 4 bars down each side of the column. Generally, the design drawings for a construction project show detail as to spacing. It was noted that some of the bars at the Harbour Cay site were overbent. Meeler inspected the bars on the ground and after the concrete columns had been poured, but noted no deficiencies in his reports. However, he did give instructions on many occasions on placement and addition of bars. He was able to check the position of the bars in the concrete columns by reason of the fact that they extended out of the column into the next floor. The concrete floor slabs were poured two days a week after the steel had been set and the columns poured. Section 108.2(e) of the Standard Building Code provides that reinforcing steel of any part of a building shall not be covered or concealed without first obtaining the approval of the building official, the designing architect, or engineer. (Testimony of Rogers, Meeler, Bennett, P. Alles, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-2, 5a) Patrick Alles, one of the field superintendents, did not start on the job until March 9, 1981, at which time the building had been completed through the third floor. On that day he observed hairline cracks in the slabs at the top and bottom of the columns. He was concerned and notified Meeler and Bennett of the existing condition. Meeler discussed the matter with A.M. Allen, a structural engineer who had actually done the design drawings, who joined him in an inspection. Allen told Meeler that there appeared to be no structural damage, but Alles thereafter added an extra line of 4 x 4 limber supports between the floors to reshore the building. Respondent was made aware of the problem but did not actually participate in the inspection and subsequent remedial work. (Testimony of Meeler, P. Alles, Respondent) On March 26, 1981, a surveyor for A. M. Allen who had worked on the Harbour Cay building "layout", was on-site and observed that several of the building columns between the fifth floor and the roof line appeared to be deflected, and that one of the columns had a sag. He called this to the attention of Patrick Alles and they estimated the amount of deflection. Alles was of the opinion that one corner column was about 3/4" out of vertical on the north corner, and the surveyor estimated a 1 1/4" deflection. No action was taken with regard to the condition of the columns (testimony of P. Alles, Adams) Meeler's last report, dated March 28, 1981, noted that on March 27th the roof slab was being poured. Subsequently the building collapsed and, shortly thereafter, Petitioner employed a registered professional engineer to conduct an investigation into the cause of the collapse. The engineer, Oscar Olsen, was accepted as an expert in structural engineering. He commenced his investigation several days after the collapse, at which time most of the debris had been removed from the job site. He inspected the broken slabs, columns, positions of rebar, thickness of slabs, and the steel stubbed out of the floor from the foundation and column locations which were still intact to determine the placement of steel, and number and size of bars. Comparing these with the specifications, he made an analysis of the design. He concluded that the primary cause of the building's collapse was a punching shear failure of the slab around the columns due to insufficient thickness of the slab, in combination with rather small columns. He attributed this deficiency to design failure. Although the design called for 8" thick slabs he found that in most cases the slabs were under the required eight inches varying from approximately 7 1/2 to 7 5/8". "Shear" is a tendency for the slab to separate from the column and just slide down it. Although the slabs did not all meet the thickness requirements of the specifications, this fact would have had only a small influence on the building failure. The actual shear stress exceeded allowable tolerances by two to three times and therefore the slabs should have been designed to be about ten inches thick. Steel bars in the columns coming out of the first floor level in several cases were considerably out of position in that they were too closely grouped, and in some cases, they were located completely over to one side of the column and in contact with the form. Such improper spacing violated Section 7.6.3 of the American Concrete Institute Building Code Requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI 318-77) in that the clear distance between longitudinal bars was not at least one and a half times the diameter of the bar, or one and a half times the diameter of the bar, or one and a half inches. The spacing also violated Section 7.6.4 of the Code which requires that the clear distance limitation between bars applies also to the clear distance between a contact lab splice and adjacent splices or bars. This violation is based on bars projecting out of the slabs that lapped bars in the column cage that came down from above, and did not maintain the same clear distance between adjacent groups or bars. The ACI Code, in Section 1.1.1, states that the Code provides minimum requirements for design and construction of reinforced concrete structural elements of any structure erected under requirements of the general building code, of which ACI Code forms a part. The improper placement of the reinforcing bars in the columns was not the initial cause of the building collapse, but could have aggravated the situation to some degree. Three of the columns were designed in such a manner that it would have been impossible for a contractor to meet the required ACI specifications, but the rest of them could have been done properly, although it would have been difficult to do so. Although the spacing problems can arise from the size of the reinforcing bars as designed by the engineer, it is normally the contractor's ultimate responsibility to ensure that the steel is properly placed and, if a problem in placement arises, he should call the matter to the attention of the engineer. The fact that the Harbour Cay building had some variation in the plumb line on the fifth floor was not a contributing cause to the building's failure. (Testimony of Olsen, Hunter, Petitioner's Exhibits 10, 13-14) The holes left by some 30 random concrete cores taken from slabs at the Harbour Cay site were measured by Warren Deatrick, Chief Engineer and Vice President of Universal Engineering and Testing Company, who is also the President of Orlando Concrete Contractors, Inc. The measurements showed that only three of the 30 cores were less than eight inches in thickness, being 7.5", 7.8", and 7.9" respectively. He noted that a number of other cores had been taken by others in the balcony areas which were designed to be approximately 1/2" less thick than the main floor slabs. Some of the main floor core holes measured more than eight inches in thickness, up to 8.4". Of the three situations involving less than eight inches in width, only the 7.5" core holes represented an excessive tolerance within reasonable construction practices, and it could have been caused by an inadvertent deflection or depression at the particular point. Due to the manner in which concrete settles in the forms and is troweled, there are always areas that tend to produce an uneven surface. Concrete contractors uniformly point out problems in steel placement to the design engineers and follow his instructions as to whether or not to change its position because he is the person who knows what is necessary according to the design, and is familiar with the basic allowable tolerances. (Testimony of Deatrick) On October 13, 1980, prior to the issuances of the building permit for the Harbour Cay project, the city engineer of Cocoa Beach reviewed the structural calculations for the project and found that they were in accordance with Chapter XII of the Southern Building Code Congress. (Respondent's Exhibit 2)
Recommendation That the Construction Industry Licensing Board suspend the certified general contractor's licenses of Respondent Lawrence for a period of six months pursuant to Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, for violation of Section 489.119(2)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire ROBERTS, EGAN & ROUTA, P.A. Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Elmo R. Hoffman, Esquire 215 East Central Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. James K. Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for answers to any one or all of five challenged questions on the structural I engineering examination that Petitioner took in April 1997 (the "structural engineering examination").
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the structural engineering examination given in April 1997. Respondent administered the examination. The minimum passing score for the structural engineering examination is 70. Respondent earned a score of 69. By Examination Grade Report dated July 29, 1997, Respondent notified Petitioner that he had failed the structural engineering examination. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. Petitioner's test results were re-scored by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying ("NCEES"). The re-score did not increase Petitioner's original score. Credit for an answer to one additional question will result in a score of 70 on examination. Petitioner challenges questions 270-273 on the morning part of the exam and question 572 on the afternoon part of the exam. The maximum score available for question 270 is 10 points. Petitioner received eight points. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for question 270. Petitioner incorrectly calculated the point where "stirrups may be discontinued." The maximum score available for question 271 is 10 points. Petitioner received two points. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for question 271. Petitioner did not complete the procedure for two of the required items. Petitioner completed only two items in question 271. He received a correct score of two points because he incorrectly calculated the point where "stirrups may be discontinued." The maximum score available for question 272 is 10 points. Petitioner received two points. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for question 272. Petitioner did not provide a correct analysis of the "forces perpendicular and parallel to the grain" or "determine the allowable force at an angle to the grain." The maximum score available for question 273 is 10 points. Petitioner received two points. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for question 273. A higher score would require Petitioner to calculate two items correctly. Petitioner calculated only one item correctly. Question 572 has two parts. Part 2 is a multiple choice format. The correct answer to Part 2 of Question 572 is answer "C," or 1.25. Petitioner chose answer "B," or 2.25. Petitioner incorrectly assumed that the structure was a mixed steel/concrete frame. If Petitioner's assumption had been correct, then answer "B," or 2.25, would have been the correct answer. Petitioner failed to show that Respondent did not utilize the scoring plan correctly. The examination provided enough information for a candidate for licensure to answer the problems correctly. The examination was properly designed to test a candidate's competency. The challenged questions are questions that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer correctly.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's challenge to questions 270-273 and 572. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Center 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 R. Beth Atchison Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carl A. Brown, pro se 9313 Sonoma Drive Orlando, Florida 32825 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Licensing Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Based upon the stipulated facts, only one issue, a legal one, must be resolved. The issue is whether Section 489.111(4)(c), Florida Statutes, is properly applied by the Board which interprets this section to require a minimum of four years of experience as a certified contractor. Having considered the statute and the Board's position in applying the interpretation above, it is concluded that the Board's interpretation is erroneous.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Margaret K. Roberts, was licensed as a Certified Building Contractor October 19, 1984. Petitioner filed an application to take the State Certified General Contractor's Examination on or about December 19, 1984. At the time Petitioner applied to take the Certified General Contractor's Examination, she held Certified Building Contractor's License No. CB C031970 and she had four years of proven experience in the Certified Building Contractor's field, although she had only been certified as a building contractor since October 19, 1984. One may obtain experience in an area of contracting without being certified. Petitioner is not qualified by virtue of holding a baccalaureate degree or experience as a residential contractor. Petitioner was not certified as a building contractor for four years prior to applying for the general contractor's examination. Petitioner's only basis of claimed eligibility to take the General Contractor's Examination is Section 489.111(4)(c), Florida Statutes. The Respondent denied the Petitioner's application to take the certification examination because of insufficient time as a certified building contractor in accordance with Florida Statutes 489.111(4)(c). Other than the issue of requisite experience as a certified contractor, Petitioner meets all other statutes and Board Rules regarding eligibility for the Certified General Contractor's Examination.
Recommendation Based upon the stipulated facts and the conclusions of law, it is recommended that Section 489.111(4)(c), Florida Statutes, be interpreted to include qualifying service in a non-certified capacity and that Petitioner's application to take the building contractor's examination be approved. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of March, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1986 COPIES FURNISHED: James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Maxwell G. Battle, Esquire 8204-A West Waters Avenue Suite 350 Tampa, Florida 33615 Arden Siegendorf, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD MARGARET K. ROBERTS, License No. CB-C031970 Petitioner, DOAH CASE NO. 85-2240 DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION Respondent. /
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent’s license as a residential contractor in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of contractors and the regulation of the construction industry in this state. Respondent, Kenneth Ronald Boaz, was a residential contractor holding license CR C035360. He was the qualifying agent for Revival Remodelers, and was doing business under that name. On or about August 23, 1996, Respondent, doing business as Revival Remodelers, entered into a contract with Vicky L. Smith to construct a 20 by 24-foot room addition to her residence located at 13281 Clay Avenue in Largo, Florida. The contract price for the addition was listed as $25,000, plus permit fees, and Respondent accepted a partial payment of $21,072.60 from Ms. Smith. Respondent was instrumental in helping Ms. Smith get the financing for the project. On September 5, 1996, Respondent obtained permit No. 146699 from the Pinellas County Building Department. Before starting construction on the room, Respondent arranged for several large trees to be removed from the area of Ms. Smith’s back yard near where the rear wall of the addition would be located. When the trees were removed, the holes left by their removal were to be filled with dirt. Though Respondent arranged for the trees to be moved, Ms. Smith paid an additional $680.00 to the sub-contractor who removed them. Respondent was aware that the trees had been removed and the holes filled with dirt. Respondent began work shortly after the removal of the trees and the filling of the holes. Ms. Smith claims she did not see anyone do any compacting of the soil where the trees had been removed, but the footers and slab were poured and finished. Whereas the Pinellas County Building Code does not require a soil compaction test, it provides that foundations shall be built on undisturbed soil of properly compacted fill. At Ms. Smith’s request, construction slowed down but continued while she tried to find additional financing to complete the work. Finally, Respondent and Ms. Smith agreed the work would cease until she could obtain the amount remaining due under the project. At this point, Ms. Smith owed Respondent approximately $4,000. Ms. Smith claims that even before this, however, she noticed cracking in the concrete slab. This worried her because she wanted to lay tile as flooring. But when she mentioned this to the Respondent, he told her not to worry as he would take care of it. He did not do so, however. Because of her concern, in the Spring of 1999, Ms. Smith called the Building Department in Clearwater and the building inspector from the county came out to inspect the work. The inspector issued a red tag for the work, signifying it was unacceptable. Ms. Smith also contacted other contractors to see if tile could be successfully laid on that slab. Each has said it could not. No other contractor with whom she has spoken is willing to take over the job without additional soil compaction. One contractor gave her an estimate of $47,500 to re-build the room. Another contractor quoted a price of $44,800, but both include items not on the contract she had with Respondent. Respondent last worked on this job in December 1996. Since that time, Ms. Smith has talked with him about the quality of his work and has had two mediation sessions with him without any success. The room has not been completed because there is substantial question whether the existing work done by Respondent can be successfully completed. The defects in the construction are manifested by the following: There is a separation of the additional wall from the existing house wall of from between 1/2 to 1 inch. The roof of the addition leaks and the insulation is moldy and falling. There are cracks all over the additional floor and outside patio slab. The corners of the addition are dropping. Cinder blocks in the addition walls are cracking The lintel is broken in three places. Ms. Smith has done no more construction on the addition because she filed her complaint with the Department and is waiting to see what is done. However, she has painted and sealed the exterior walls. The leak is not through the wall cracks but through the roof. After her complaint, Respondent had someone from PSI, an engineering consulting firm, come out and perform a soils compaction test. As a result of that test, several different formulae were offered to fix the problem, but Ms. Smith was not satisfied, considering it no more than a "cover-up." Finally, Respondent offered her a structural solution to the problem that would remove the red tag. Ms. Smith would put the balance owed, plus some additional money into an escrow account, whereupon Respondent would fix the problem. However, because Ms. Smith no longer has any confidence in the Respondent, she does not want him to do any of the work. She contends that Respondent never agreed to fix the problem if she would put what she stilled owed him in escrow - only if she would add to it. Kevin McGinley is a licensed general contractor who in 1997 was asked by Ms. Smith to give her an estimate on making repairs to and completing the addition started by Respondent. His examination of the site showed severe settling on the addition. The work appeared to have been built on an uncompacted pad which caused settling, and McGinley did not want to be responsible for the work. Therefore, he gave Ms. Smith an estimate to tear down what had been done by Respondent and to rebuild from scratch. His work would include an inspection by a soils engineer to see if the existing soil would support the project. While cracks in a slab can be repaired, in the instant case, without knowing what caused the problem, he would not want to try to fix it. Wendell G. Wardell, a building inspector for Pinellas County, first inspected this project on September 16, 1996, when he went out for the slab inspection. There were several problems with the site, none of which related to the instant problem, and all of which were cleared up by November 21, 1996. He was again sent to the site somewhat later based upon a complaint by the owner. On this visit he saw cracking and settlement of the slab and he issued the red tag. Neither Respondent nor the owner called for a re-inspection that would be required before work can resume because work was not resumed. Mr. Wardell noted that a compaction test was not required by the county before the permit was issued in this case, though sometime it is required. Mr. Yaxley, a consulting engineer, visited the site in April 1998. Ms. Smith was present at the time. He observed the cracking in the floors and walls and the mildew in the roof. The most obvious defects were the 1/4-inch cracks in the floors and walls of the addition. After studying the site and the results from the two other laboratories that tested the site, he concluded that the removal of the trees caused the holes several feet deep that were then filled with 20 square yards of dirt. This fill dirt should have been compacted in a reasonable manner, and it was not. Yaxley reasoned that Respondent knew of the holes and the placement of the fill dirt and he should have done tests to ensure the compacting was done properly. The use of a bob-cat, a front-end loader, as used here, did not provide the appropriate compaction. However, removal of the trees was a clue that a closer look at the soil was required. Yaxley examined the laboratory work done on the property and determined there are two voids left under the soil from the removal of the trees. One is about 18 inches down and the other at about three to four feet down. Compaction may or may not cure this. Settling may continue for a long time. While one void could have been an unknown factor, the existence of the three trees was a known factor, and proper caution and judgment would have called for further inquiry to determine the status of the sub-surface. Respondent claims he had no knowledge of any voids in the soil. He compacted with water and soil in layers but this compacting was done under the slab area, not where the holes were filled. He used a concrete contractor to do this work and has always found it to be consistent with acceptable standards before. There are several other defects in Respondent’s performance, according to Yaxley. The core of the slab shows no reinforcing of the concrete either by welded steel or fabric fiber mixed in with the concrete; the roof deck is mildewed; there are cracks in the slab and between the main building and the addition; there are step cracks in both the north and east wall of the addition; and the bracing and attachment of the east gable above the concrete block is not adequate. Mr. Yaxley went back to revisit the property on October 5, 1998, and found that as of that time, no corrective work had been done. The problem with the property can be fixed with injections of grout and the installation of pilings. If that were done properly, Ms. Smith would be able to safely install the tile flooring she wants. However, if nothing is done, the cracks will remain and probably get worse. Respondent contends that the removal of the trees did not create holes that required fill. He asserts that the fill dirt brought in was procured at the request of the Building Department that wanted it to construct another swale on the property. Mr. Boaz admits to not using reinforcing steel in the concrete slab he poured. Instead, he ordered the fiber- reinforced concrete at a thickness of more than six inches, which exceeds the code requirement of four inches. He did not know, until he heard Mr. Yaxley’s testimony, that the concrete poured by his sub-contractor was not fiber-fill.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a final order in this case finding Respondent guilty of negligence resulting in danger to property, and misconduct in contracting, and imposing an administrative fine of $5,500. It is also recommended that Respondent be ordered to pay restitution to Ms. Vicki Smith in the amount of $21,072.60 or, in the alternative, within 90 days from the date of the final order, undertake such remedial construction activity as is necessary to remove the red tag issued by the Pinellas County Building Department regarding this project. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Crabill, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32388-2202 Warren Knaust, Esquire Knaust & Valente, P.A. 2730 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent conducted an auto salvage operation under the name, All-States Auto Salvage, Inc., at its site located at 1331 22nd Street North in St. Petersburg. Petitioner, Department of Environmental Protection, was the state agency responsible for enforcing the terms of the rules and statutes of this state dealing with pollution of the land, air and waters of Florida. As a part of Respondent's salvage operation, it dismantled derelict automobiles to salvage parts for further use, if possible, and to obtain scrap metal for processing. This operation is carried out at its business site located on a roughly triangular piece of land in St. Petersburg bordered on one side by 13th Avenue North, by 22nd Avenue North on another side, and on the third side by a water filled ditch which ultimately empties into Booker Lake, classified as an Outstanding Florida Water. On June 9, 1991, Investigator Weeks, of the Department's Southwest District office, conducted an inspection of the Respondent's business site on the land in question, which was rented from someone else, based on a complaint filed with the Department on December 19, 1990. That complaint was that Respondent's salvage operation was discharging various types of polluting fluids from the vehicles being dismantled at the site. Mr. Weeks found that car fluids were being discharged onto the ground during engine removal. He was told by Respondent's employees that the entire site was paved with concrete under the surface dirt. Respondent confirmed that at hearing, indicating further that the eight inch concrete slab was underlaid by a non-porous plastic sheet designed to act as a barrier against seepage. Though neither Mr. Weeks or subsequent investigators who visited the site confirmed the presence of the barrier, neither was its presence disproved, and it is found such a plastic sheet indeed exists. Mr. Weeks noticed, however, that no berms existed to control and contain fluids for later collection and disposal. When Ms. Hinson, also a Department investigator, visited the site again on April 29, 1992, she did not notice any berms surrounding the property, and saw puddles of standing water which had a sheen on them indicating the presence of petroleum products. Mr. Weeks report indicates that storm water falling on the site has been washing these polluting fluids off the property and into the adjacent ditch which ultimately empties into a jurisdictional water. This ditch had distressed vegetation on the side adjoining Respondent's property. This same situation was observed by Ms. Hinson during her April, 1992 visit to the site. Ms. Hinson has an undergraduate degree in biology with minors in chemistry and physics. She is but one semester from completing her Master's degree in environmental health. Based on her education and experience, she concluded the ditch vegetation was damaged because of the contamination of petroleum products from Respondent's yard. If a concrete pad exists and is not properly pitched and sloped, it would increase wastewater runoff into the ditch, and since concrete is somewhat permeable, contaminants could leach through it into the soil beneath unless stopped and rerouted by any existing barrier. She took no water or soil samples from either the site yard or the ditch, however. No direct evidence was presented as to whether the polluted water runoff actually went into the ditch, and no direct evidence was introduced to show that the water in the ditch was ever tested for pollutants at the time of either visit. Mr. Kristensen indicated the distress to the vegetation was caused by weed control spraying by the county or the city. A check with the city office responsible for spraying in the area revealed the last spraying at that site was in October, 1993, and the only one before that was 18 months previously, in June, 1992, after Ms. Hinson's first visit. It is found, therefore, that the vegetative distress was caused by runoff from Respondent's salvage yard though no evidence of pollution was identified in the ditch water. On April 29, 1992, Ms. Hinson was asked by a member of the St. Petersburg Police Department to accompany a team on a joint inspection of Respondent's operation. This is not unusual as she receives similar requests from law enforcement agencies in the several counties which make up the Department's Southwest District. In this case, the police were going to look for stolen vehicles and wanted Ms. Hinson to look for possible environmental violations. When she went through Respondent's site on that occasion, she saw automobiles being dismantled on what appeared to her to be the bare ground to the left of the entrance to the yard. Autos awaiting dismantling were being stored to the right of the entrance. Also on the right side, progressing toward the back of the site, beyond the autos, was a large pile of tires which, she estimated to number between 1,200 and 1,800, lying against the building toward the back of the property and against the side fence. There were no fire lanes provided as the pile extended against the side of the building and the fence. Ms. Hinson saw auto parts lying on the ground all over the site. It appeared to her, from the appearance of the ground, that it was made up of a black, sticky substance smelling of petroleum, whereas regular soil in that area of town was grey and sandy. She did not dig into this covering and does not know how deep it was or whether it overlaid a concrete pad, as Mr. Kristensen asserts. She did notice puddles of fluid on the ground which had a sheen on them, and she did not see any containment efforts being made. There were barrels available for waste fluids, but it was clear to her that not all fluid was getting into them. In fact, she saw an employee removing gasoline tanks from vehicles, and this process was dripping fluid, presumably gasoline, right onto the ground. Admittedly, not much leakage occurred at any one time, but from the condition she observed on the ground, it was evident to her the practice had been going on for a long time. Ms. Hinson asked Mr. Kristensen about how fluids were accumulated, stored, and disposed of. In response, he showed her receipts indicating he had sold reclaimed oil to a processor. Receipts from 1989 - 1993, introduced at the hearing, indicate that waste oil and diesel was periodically sold to processors and in January, 1991, some 20 gallons of waste water was delivered to a recovery firm. Ms. Hinson again visited the site shortly before the hearing but did not go in. She noted, however, that the yard had far fewer vehicles on it, and the dismantled pieces are now neatly stacked. The soil still appears black, however, and the ditch still appears the same as on her previous visit. In her professional opinion, a need exists for a contamination assessment. Though the volume has been substantially reduced since her initial inspection, the contamination she observed then does not appear to have been corrected. There is a need to prevent contamination, and if some occurs, to contain it. She did not observe any control measures in progress. Sometime after Ms. Hinson's visit in April, 1992, Mr. Kristensen received a Final Order from the District Director requiring him to make certain corrections to his place of business and its operation. This Final Order was issued by mistake, however, but at no time until late in 1993 did anyone from the Department notify Mr. Kristensen of that fact or of his responsibilities in light of that mistake. Upon receipt of the Order, Mr. Kristensen set upon a course of corrective action designed to rectify the identified violations. The tire pile was reduced; a suction pump was purchased to collect standing water; an expensive piece of equipment to drain fluids from vehicles was purchased and put into operation; berms were constructed which, with the existing pitch and slope of the slab, should keep all fluids on site for mechanical removal; and all hazardous waste is now stored in a manner approved by the fire department. In addition to the above, since 1986 or before, a standing written procedure has been in existence regarding the handling of hazardous waste. Though this directive is required reading for all employees, it is obvious it was honored more in the breach than in the compliance. According to Mr. Kristensen, the soil which overlays the concrete slab is no more than one quarter of an inch thick. This would appear to be a rather conservative estimate, however. Review of the photographs introduced by both parties reveals the thickness of the mixture to be much greater. Regardless, Mr. Kristensen asserts this soil is periodically collected and dried to remove the petroleum before being put down again and used as an absorbent. This process, however, is not likely to remove more than the odor of petroleum as a result of evaporation. The actual contaminants remain. This absorbent was present as late as October 26, 1993, when the site was visited by Ms. Cangro. At the time of her visit it was raining and the ground was covered with a wet, black substance which gave off an odor of petroleum. Ms. Hinson spent between six and eight hours on this case. She earns approximately $120.00 per hour. Other expenses incurred on the matter include attorney and clerical time. No figures were provided to establish actual or estimated costs in this regard. Taken together, the evidence indicates Respondent is a person within the meaning of the pertinent statutes; automobile fluids and tires constitute solid waste within the meaning of the pertinent statutes; and Respondent's operation at the property constitutes a solid waste management facility within the meaning of the appropriate statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondent has violated those provisions of Florida Statutes cited on the Department's Notice of Violation and Order for Corrective Action, and imposing such restrictions and conditions upon Respondent's continued operation as are lawful, necessary and proper under the circumstance. Costs are not assessed. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of March, 1994, 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 29th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-5517 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: - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. Presumed correct but not proven. - 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as likely but not proven to have occurred. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 31. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 33. Accepted. Accepted. & 36. Accepted and incorporated herein. 37. - 39. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carl H. J. Kristensen, Jr. Qualified Representative All-States Auto Salvage Incorporated 1331 22nd Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Petitioner, White Rock Quarries (“White Rock”), is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees to be paid by Respondents, Dorothy Brown-Alfaro and Amilcar Alfaro (“Respondents” or “Ms. Alfaro”), pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes, and an award of attorney’s fees and taxable costs to be paid by Respondents pursuant to section 552.40(9), Florida Statutes; and, if so, the amount of attorney’s fees and taxable costs to which White Rock is entitled.
Findings Of Fact White Rock engages in construction materials mining activities in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Specifically, White Rock utilizes explosives to procure construction materials (i.e., limestone) from quarries that are located in northwest Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondents reside in a single-family, one-story home located at 14699 Southwest 47th Street, Miramar, Broward County, Florida 33027. Respondents are the third owners of the home, which was built in 1981. Respondents have resided in the home since 1998. The home is approximately 3,000 square feet “under air,” and is composed of concrete block with stucco finishes, a shallow slab-on-grade foundation system, wood-framed interior walls, and ceramic tile flooring. The subject quarries are located within various geographic areas identified by different sections in close proximity to Respondents’ home. Of particular relevance to the instant matter are sections 7, 6, and 4/5. Section 7 is approximately 2.6 or 2.7 miles from Respondents’ home. Section 6 is approximately 2.3 or 2.4 miles from Respondents’ home. Section 4/5 is approximately 1.6 miles from Respondents’ home.1/ In the underlying case, Respondents asserted that White Rock’s quarrying activities caused damages to their home. Respondents alleged damages centered on “cracks” that exist throughout the home--specifically, cracks throughout the tile flooring inside the home; cracks on the cement flooring of the garage; cracks in the interior and exterior walls and ceilings; cracks in the semi-circular, stamp-concrete driveway and patio; and cracks around the surface of the windows. It is undisputed that cracks exist throughout Respondents’ home and that Respondents’ home is damaged because of the cracks. However, the issues to be determined in the underlying proceeding were whether the cracks were caused by White Rock’s blasting activities, and, if so, the amount Respondents should be compensated for the damages. Section 552.40(1) provides, in pertinent part, that: A person may initiate an administrative proceeding to recover damages resulting from the use of explosives in connection with construction mining materials mining activities by filing a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings by electronic means through the division’s website on a form provided by it . . . . Pursuant to section 552.40(2)(c) and (d), the petition must include: The approximate time, date, and place of the use of explosives which is alleged to have resulted in damage to the petitioner; and A description of the damage caused and the amount sought for recovery. On December 14, 2015, Respondents’ former counsel filed an Amended Petition Under the Florida Construction Materials Mining Activities Administrative Recovery Act. In the amended petition prepared and filed by Respondents’ former counsel pursuant to sections 552.40(1) and (2), Respondents claimed they were entitled to the following items of damages caused by White Rock’s blasting activities: Floor ($24,000) Foundation ($100,000) Walls ($50,000) Ceiling ($20,000) Patio ($50,000) Driveway ($75,000) Windows ($45,000)2/ The final hearing in the underlying proceeding lasted two days. At that hearing, Respondent Dorothy Brown-Alfaro (who appeared pro se at the final hearing), presented photographs and a home inspection report showing cracks throughout the home. She described new, worsening, and expanding cracks throughout the home resulting from White Rock’s blasting activities. In addition, Ms. Alfaro submitted into evidence a blasting log, which documented the date, time, and intensity of White Rock’s ongoing blasting activities since 1999 Respondents claimed they felt at their home. The blasting log was also an exhibit to Respondents’ amended petition. At the hearing, Ms. Alfaro testified to White Rock’s frequent blasting and the effects on her home from the blasts. According to Ms. Alfaro, when White Rock’s blasting activities occur, the house “sways,” “everything shakes,” and “the entire structure of my house moves.” According to Ms. Alfaro, “when it shakes, my ceiling, my roof, my walls, my floor, everything shakes.” She testified that items fall off the shelves and she described the feeling from the blasts as a “vibration similar to an earthquake.” Ms. Alfaro presented the additional testimony of Barbara Hagan, Paul Ingelmo, and Ismailia Rashid. Mr. Ingelmo is a structural engineer who performed a visual inspection of Respondents’ residence. Ms. Rashid is a general and roofing contractor. Neither Mr. Ingelmo, Ms. Rashid, nor Ms. Hagan could opine that the damages to Respondents’ home were caused by White Rock’s blasting activities. Ms. Alfaro is an electrical contractor. She is not a licensed general contractor or structural engineer. At hearing, Ms. Alfaro conceded that she does not have experience as a general contractor or seismologist. She has not had any training in seismology or blasting activities. The undersigned found Ms. Alfaro’s testimony regarding the purported cause of the cracks not to be credited or persuasive. Ms. Alfaro regularly provides construction estimates in her business. Ms. Alfaro testified that the damages she requested in the amended petition were based upon her estimate of the repair costs she would incur to correct the damages caused by White Rock’s blasting activities. She testified, without objection, that she obtained material costs and calculated the amount of materials needed (i.e. per cubic yard of concrete and drywall) and labor to complete the repairs. In response to the evidence presented by Ms. Alfaro at the hearing, White Rock presented the testimony of Jeffrey A. Straw, a seismologist; David L. Teasdale, a civil structural engineer; and Michael Schraeger, a general contractor and building inspector. As a seismologist, Mr. Straw was responsible for monitoring the impacts and vibration from White Rock’s blasting activities and analyzing their effects on structures. At the hearing, he described the concept of peak particle velocity (“PPV”), the speed at which a particle of ground oscillates as the vibration wave moves through the ground following a blast. Mr. Straw testified that according to seismographs located within the vicinity of Respondents’ home, at no time have any of White Rock’s blasting activities reached or exceeded the PPV limit of 0.5 inch per second established by the state of Florida. Mr. Straw also visited Respondents’ home twice: in April 2006 and January 2016. On both occasions, Mr. Straw brought a camera and notepad with him to catalog the defects identified by Respondents. Mr. Straw took extensive and comprehensive photographs detailing the cracks throughout Respondents’ home and driveway. Mr. Straw also testified that 90 percent of the alleged defects he observed in 2016 were items that he also observed in some format in 2006.3/ While at Respondents’ home in January 2016, Mr. Straw experienced the effects of a blast. He described it as “[r]elatively minor based on blasts that I felt,” and indicated the blast lasted about three to five seconds at most. However, Mr. Straw further testified that he could feel the impact of the blast under his feet, and he could hear it, “there was some general vibration of the structure,” and some “dish rattling.” Mr. Teasdale is extensively familiar with seismographs and has extensive experience installing and using them. At the hearing, he was accepted by the undersigned as an expert in structural behavior from ground motion and normal service loads, the influence of construction practices and environmental conditions on building features, soils and hardscape, the causes and conditions documented at Respondents’ residence, and lot features including the suitability of existing safe blasting standards in the state of Florida. Mr. Teasdale explained the substantial differences between an earthquake and quarry blasting. Mr. Teasdale testified that for blasting to cause damage to a structure, distortion must occur. According to Mr. Teasdale, distortion occurs where the foundation of a structure is accelerated laterally and causes the under part of the building to lag in response, which causes the building to shift back and forth and mimic a parallelogram shape. He explained that when distortion occurs, cracks will emanate from the corner of the walls and that those cracks will be mirrored on the opposite walls (inside and outside the structure). Mr. Teasdale testified there was no damage to the foundation of Respondents’ home, and the foundation and floor of a home would not experience distortion at 0.5 PPV or below because those limits are too low to produce the energy necessary to cause a structure to become mobilized. According to Mr. Teasdale, Respondents’ home exhibited a variety of horizontal and vertical cracks and separations in the finishes, which are typical of environmental stresses in those materials. Mr. Teasdale also testified that distortion causes diagonal cracks, while thermal environmental stresses cause cracks vertically and horizontally. He explained that cracks caused by environmental conditions do not correlate on the inside and outside, while cracks caused by distortion do correlate on the inside and outside. He emphasized that the absence of corresponding cracks on the inside and outside of the structure generally precludes blasting as the cause of damages. Mr. Teasdale explained that from the moment the concrete is cast, it begins to shrink and develop cracks. Mr. Teasdale further explained that stucco, which is essentially the same material as concrete, is also prone to cracks due to normal environmental conditions. Based on his review and analysis of Respondents’ home, Mr. Teasdale concluded that he would exclude blasting to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty as the cause of damages to Respondents’ home. Mr. Schraeger has been licensed as a general contractor for 22 years and specializes in repairs, remodeling, and renovations of commercial and residential structures. He has 20 years of experience performing inspections of buildings relating to determination of material, construction failure, and defects. At the hearing, Mr. Schraeger was accepted by the undersigned as an expert in construction practices and environmental effects on materials and structures. Mr. Schraeger inspected Respondents’ home in 2006 and 2016. He testified that 90 to 95 percent of the alleged defects he observed in the home in 2016 existed when he inspected the home in 2006. Mr. Schraeger testified that the cracks that he observed on the tile floor inside Respondents’ home are very typical in a South Florida home because concrete typically cracks within all concrete structures. These types of cracks can be caused by poor installation of the tile or shrinkage of the monolithic slab over time. He opined there was no evidence of foundation damage. Mr. Schraeger further testified that in his professional opinion, some of the cracks in Respondents’ home are the result of poor construction practices. For example, he explained that most of the cracks in the interior of the home are due to poor construction practices because of the use of an inappropriate method for finishing the joints in the drywall. During his 2016 inspection, Mr. Schraeger observed tape on some of the joints, which either had no joint compound under them, or the tape was applied after the compound started to dry, causing a bond failure. Some of the cracks generating from the corners of openings appeared to be from improperly secured corner bead. During his 2016 inspection, Mr. Schraeger also observed a crack in the master bedroom approximately eight feet in length, which appeared to be a joint in the drywall. This was apparent to Mr. Schraeger because the crack was visible on both sides of the joint tape, which had failed. According to Mr. Schraeger, the cause of this failure was moisture from a roof leak. Staining due to moisture on the ceiling in the area and a repair of the roof above this area indicated a previous leak. Notably, other areas of the home indicated roof leaks, including stains on the ceiling of the office area and staining around the skylight in the hallway. Mr. Schraeger further testified that the patio tile and driveway lack sufficient control joints, thereby making the stamped-concrete driveway and patio prone to crack. Mr. Schraeger also identified issues of poor maintenance by Respondents. For example, he noted that the caulking around the windows was brittle and almost nonexistent. At the hearing, Mrs. Alfaro acknowledged that in the 17 years she has owned the home, the windows have never been re-caulked. According to Mr. Schraeger, several cracks were observed on the stucco exterior walls of the home. With the exception of a severe crack on the wing wall on the rear of the patio, he opined that all of the cracks in the exterior walls of the home were attributed to common aesthetic cracks caused by the lack of control joints, dissimilar materials, bond failure, and improper maintenance. According to Mr. Schraeger, the crack on the wing wall of the patio, which ran along the bottom of a large tie beam, was attributable to poor construction methods. At the hearing, Mr. Schraeger disputed Ms. Alfaro’s cost of repair testimony. However, Mr. Schraeger was not asked to give an expert opinion regarding the amount of damages, and he provided only “ballpark” or “rough” estimates of the cost of repair. For example, Mr. Schraeger testified that the cost to repair the flooring would be “approximately $11,000.”4/ As to the foundation, he estimated the cost to be $0.00 because he found no damage. As to the walls, Mr. Schraeger estimated a figure of $16,000. As to the ceiling, Mr. Schraeger estimated a figure of $5,000. As to the patio, Mr. Schraeger estimated a figure “well within the high end of six thousand.” As to the driveway, Mr. Schraeger estimated a range between “roughly” $17,000 and $20,000--the high end of the range resulting from “material fluctuation” construction costs. As to the windows, Mr. Schraeger estimated $12,000. Clearly, Mr. Schraeger acknowledged there are actual damages throughout much of the home, and there are actual costs associated with the repair of the damages. That the parties disagreed as to the amount of damages as to each item of alleged damages does not mean that the amount of damages claimed was unsupported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim. In sum, based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, the undersigned found that Respondents failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the damages to their home were caused by White Rock’s blasting activities. Rather, the preponderance of the evidence presented at hearing established that the damages to Respondents’ home were not caused by White Rock’s blasting activities. In reaching this conclusion, the undersigned credited and found persuasive the testimony of Mr. Straw, Mr. Teasdale, and Mr. Schraeger. Although the undersigned was not persuaded in the underlying case by the evidence presented by Respondents, this does not mean that Respondents’ claims were not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claims. There was competent, substantial evidence introduced by Respondents at hearing showing that: (1) Respondents’ home was in close proximity to White Rock’s frequent blasting activities; (2) when the blasting occurs, the house “sways,” “everything shakes,” “the entire structure of [the] house moves,” items fall off the shelf, and Ms. Alfaro feels a vibration similar to an earthquake; and (3) there are cracks throughout the home--some of the cracks are new, worsening, and have expanded as a result of White Rock’s frequent blasting activities. White Rock is the prevailing party in Dorothy Brown- Alfaro and Amilcar Alfaro v. White Rock Quarries, DOAH Case No. 15-6014CM. However, White Rock has failed to establish it is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to sections 57.105 and 552.40(9). On page 16 of its proposed final order, White Rock also claims it is entitled to recover taxable costs under section 552.40(9), totaling $9,287, as the prevailing party in the underlying case. The amount of taxable costs claimed is based on Exhibits 12A through 12G. In Respondents’ Proposed Final Order, Respondents do not dispute that White Rock is entitled to “recover costs totaling $9,287.15 (all the costs claimed except for the cost of lunches totaling $62.65) as costs reasonably necessary to defend the claims asserted in the underlying case.” The undersigned has examined White Rock’s Exhibits 12A through 12G, which constitute the universe of taxable costs sought, and the total of the costs is $9,287. There is no cost of lunches included within Exhibits 12A through 12G. All of the costs identified in Exhibits 12A through 12G are taxable costs or incidental administrative costs directly associated with the case, and therefore, are recoverable under section 552.40.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for one or more examination questions answered by him during the June 1990 Certified Building Contractor Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for reexamination at the June 1990 certified building contractor examination. On Part II, he received a score of 74.0. A minimum passing score is 69.01. On Part III, he received a score of 67.00. Minimum passing score is 69.01. Petitioner had previously passed Part I of the exam. Petitioner initially challenged question numbers 4, 10 and 17. The National Assessment Institute prepares licensure examinations for building contractors in the State of Florida under authority of the Office of Examination Services, Department of Professional Regulation. The Institute prepared question numbers 4, 10 & 17 for the certified building contractor examination administered on June 26 and 27, 1990. As to question number 4, the only correct response to the question was answer "B". Petitioner's answer to the question was "D", which was not acceptable. As to question number 10, the correct response was answer "C". Petitioner's answer "B", was not acceptable. As to question number 17, the correct response was answer "C". Petitioner's answer "A" was not acceptable. The Department's determination that answers "B", "C" and "C" were the only appropriate answers was not arbitrary and unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the challenge by Petitioner that he be awarded a passing grade for Part III of the June 1990 certified building contractors examination be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 19th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Uebelacker 326 NW Catherine Avenue Port Charlotte, FL 33952 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
