Findings Of Fact Petitioner, John H. Phipps Broadcasting Stations, Inc., owns approximately 10,600 acres of land bordering on Lake Jackson. The corporation owns roughly seventy percent of the waterfront property around Lake Jackson. The corporation's land is used for agriculture. Less than ten percent of the land is used in a minor grain operation involving the interspersion of cover via several small grain fields. Most of these grain fields are in self-contained basins creating no erosion or runoff problems. These fields are conducive to the propagation of wildlife, particularly quail and deer. The grain produced by these fields is used, at least in part, in the corporation's cattle operation. Approximately twenty-five percent of the corporation's land is used in a cattle breeding operation involving three to five hundred head of cattle. No feed lot operation is involved. The cattle are in pastures, the majority of which are bounded by the waters of Lake Jackson. The corporation fences to and into the water because of the fluctuating level of Lake Jackson and the necessity to contain their cattle. This practice has been ongoing for more than twenty-nine years. The corporation presently has no permits of an environmental nature in connection with the cattle operation. The testimony by Petitioner's witnesses is that the pasture cattle operation is very conducive to good water quality because it captures runoff and allows it to percolate. The remainder of the corporation's land is used in a timber operation which includes controlled burning to help contain erosion. Witnesses for Petitioner corporation testified that the water quality of Lake Jackson bordering the corporation's land is excellent. A high priority of the agricultural operation of the corporation is the maintenance of good water quality in Lake Jackson. Activities are not permitted on the corporation's land that degrade the water quality of the lake. Attempts are made to keep runoff from the lake. The evidence indicates that there are no discharges of water from the corporation's lands into Lake Jackson other than natural runoff. The testimony presented by Petitioner corporation at the final hearing was that the corporation intends to continue using the property as it is presently used and has no tentative plans for a different use of the property. Petitioner, Colin S. Phipps, owns approximately 1,000 acres bordering in part on Lake Jackson. He is also president of John H. Phipps Broadcasting Stations, Inc. Colin S. Phipps rents his acreage and shooting rights to an individual who farms the acreage. He testified that nothing was done on the property that presently requires permits from the Department of Environmental Regulation. John H. Phipps and John E. Phipps personally own parcels of land bordering on Lake Jackson. The three individual petitioners in this cause are officers of the corporate Petitioner. No evidence was presented to show activities on behalf of the petitioners on their property other than that set forth above. Further, it was the position of the petitioners that they did not foresee a change in the activities presently occurring on their property. It was their position that they had no tentative future plans for the property. They did indicate that they did not know what the future might bring. An experienced and qualified appraiser appeared on behalf of petitioners and testified that he had read the rules being challenged in this cause, was familiar with the subject property, and that in his opinion the vagueness of the proposed rules would dramatically and adversely affect the value of Petitioners' land. There are several problems with this opinion testimony. The witness did not testify that he had appraised the property. Rather, he testified that he was very familiar with the property. Thus, his testimony on the value of the land is speculation, albeit knowledgeable speculation, rather than the considered expert opinion of an appraiser. Further, the witness' opinion was based on his reading as a layman of the proposed rules and his speculation of their effect on the real estate market in which the subject lands might be offered for sale. The Hearing Officer found that the witness was a qualified appraiser with experience in appraising the economic impact of environmental regulations on waterfront property. Nevertheless, his interpretation of the proposed rules carries with it no aura of correctness for he is not, and, perhaps as all of us, cannot be, an expert in the interpretation of rules. The rules must speak for themselves and the witness can only speculate on the effect of different interpretations which might be given the rules. Therefore, the Hearing Officer concludes that the opinion of the witness is so speculative that his testimony is incompetent to support findings of fact as to the effect of the proposed regulations on the market value of Petitioners' real property.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether penalties should be imposed and investigative costs and expenses assessed against Respondent for water supply system violations; and, if so, the amount of the penalties and assessments.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Premier Construction Group, Inc., owns and operates a water treatment plant and associated piping in a commercial building it owns and leases at 2315 Highway 41 North in Inverness. The water treatment plant consists of a 500- gallon tank that holds groundwater pumped from a well. The water in the tank is treated with chlorine and distributed throughout the building for potable water use. The water system serves 25 or more people daily for at least 60 days a year and serves the same people for over six months a year. Respondent owned and operated the water system for 18 and a half years with no violations. Respondent hired a licensed water treatment plant operator to monitor and ensure compliance with applicable DEP rules. In August 2009, Respondent’s licensed operator increased his price substantially. Rick Suggs, as Respondent’s owner and president, disputed the increase and asked the licensed operator to reconsider. Family obligations then required Mr. Suggs to travel to South Carolina for an extended period of time, and Respondent did not attend to the matter further. By the end of August 2009, Respondent’s licensed operator notified DEP that he would no longer be servicing Respondent’s water system as of the end of the month. On August 24, 2009, DEP mailed Respondent a letter relaying this information and putting Respondent on notice that a new licensed operator would have to be hired for September. Notwithstanding Respondent’s communications with its licensed operator and DEP in August, Respondent did not hire a new licensed operator. Mr. Suggs testified that Respondent did not know its licensed operator actually quit until later in September. When this was brought to Mr. Suggs’ attention, he instructed his office manager to hire a replacement. Respondent thought the matter was resolved, but the supposed replacement did not proceed with the work. While Respondent was without a licensed operator, the residual chlorine in the system dropped to zero when tested by DEP on September 17, 24, and 30 and on October 7 and 13, 2009. As a result, the water system did not comply with disinfection requirements during September and October 2009. Respondent did not notify DEP of its failure to comply with disinfection requirements in September and October 2009. No monthly operation reports were submitted to DEP for Respondent’s water system for September or October 2009. No bacteriological samples were collected from Respondent’s water system for the months of September and October 2009. Respondent did not notify DEP of its failure to collect bacteriological samples in September and October 2009. While without a licensed operator, Respondent did not provide public notification of its failure to collect bacteriological samples in September and October 2009. Well into October 2009, Respondent became aware that the supposed replacement licensed operator was not doing work for Respondent. Mr. Suggs hired a replacement licensed operator named Mike Watson, who began servicing Respondent’s water system on November 17, 2009. Public notification of Respondent’s failure to collect bacteriological samples in September and October 2009 was given on November 25, 2009. On December 11, 2009, Respondent submitted a completed DEP Form 62-555.900(22), Certification of Delivery of Public Notice, as to its failure to notify the public of its failure to collect bacteriological samples in September and October 2009. By not having a licensed operator in September and October 2009, Respondent saved $332. By not having bacteriological samples collected and tested in September and October 2009, Respondent saved $60. There was evidence that DEP spent approximately $678 investigating and enforcing the violations. More may have been spent, but no evidence of any additional costs or expenses was presented. There was no evidence of any other water treatment violations by Respondent after October 2009. Although there was a potential that the violations could have posed a health threat, there was no evidence that the public’s health actually was threatened by Respondent’s violations. The water system was tested on November 18, 2009, and did not have any coliform bacteria. The NOV includes corrective actions (essentially coming into and staying in compliance), which Respondent already has taken. The NOV requests that penalties be paid within 30 days by cashier’s check or money order made payable to the “State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection” and including the notations OGC File No. 09-3847-09-PW and “Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund” to be mailed to DEP’s Southwest District office at 13051 North Telecom Parkway, Temple Terrace, Florida 33637. Respondent believes the penalties sought by DEP in this case are excessive. Mr. Suggs cited Respondent’s clean record for 18 and a half years, his personal and financial difficulties during the two months when the violations occurred, and his responsiveness in correcting violations beginning in November 2009. Mr. Suggs testified that, during mediation, DEP informed him that the penalties could have totaled $115,000 if an unexplained “matrix” had been used to calculate the penalties. Mr. Suggs thought $115,000 was “ludicrous.” Mr. Suggs also requests that the lesser penalties sought in the NOV be further reduced, especially considering that Respondent paid a lawyer $2,800 for representation earlier in the proceeding, until the lawyer withdrew from the case.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondents, Anthony Crescenzo and Johns by John II, Inc. (collectively, Respondents), violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022(1)(g), (k), (l)2., and (p), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the standards for onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS), pursuant to chapters 381 and 489, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64E-6. Respondent Anthony Crescenzo is a resident of the State of Florida and holds DOH registration number SR0061541, to provide septic tank contracting services in Florida. Mr. Crescenzo owns and operates Johns by John II, Inc. (Johns by John), a Florida corporation located at 6252 Commercial Way, Weeki Wachee, Hernando County, Florida. Johns by John is authorized by the Department to provide septic tank services under Business Authorization number SA0041171. Johns by John provides OSTDS services pursuant to rules adopted by the Department and under the license, registration, and direction of Anthony Crescenzo. Winston and Dianne Wescott reside at 2245 Ring Road in Spring Hill, Florida, and have done so for approximately 19 years. Sometime in April 2014, Mr. Wescott noticed a depression and some saturated soil in his yard, near his septic tank. Mr. Wescott was concerned because of prior sink hole activity. After some telephone calls and an inspection by the insurance adjuster, Mr. Winston called Johns by John. On or about Saturday, June 7, 2014, a worker from Johns by John came to the residence and pumped out the drainfield. At that time, waste was coming out of the ground but was not backing up into the home. After the pump-out was complete, Mr. Wescott showed the technician the depressed area, and an exposed area that revealed that the outlet pipe to the septic system’s distribution box (D-box) was defective. The area had been exposed by either the insurance adjuster or the homeowner before the technician arrived. The technician telephoned Mr. Crescenzo, who advised that he would come out the following Monday or Tuesday to inspect the system and see what additional repairs were necessary. Mr. Wescott paid $205.72 for the pump-out of the drainfield. On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, Mr. Crescenzo met with Mr. Wescott to assess what repairs were necessary. When he arrived, the homeowner had already dug around the area, leaving the tank and the D-box at least partially exposed. Mr. Crescenzo advised that a new drainfield might be necessary, but did not state that it was absolutely required. He also explained that the repair would require a permit, and that they would do what they could to repair, as opposed to replace, the existing system. Mr. Crescenzo also explained that because of the need to obtain a permit, it might be four to six weeks before the job was completed. Mr. Crescenzo prepared, and Mr. Wescott signed, a Work Order/Proposed Drainfield Estimate form. Under “Job Description,” the following handwritten notation was provided: D-box collapsed down [illegible] point may have to replace entire system $2,500-$3,500. System will need to go in the front due to site conditions 4 bedroom house deposit required $1,000. The preprinted text on the form provided the following statements in bold-faced type: * NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SPRINKLERS, WIRES, BROKEN PIPES, YARD, SOD OR DRIVEWAY DAMAGEDeposits are non-refundable. The form also provided for a 10-year warranty of any work performed. Although the language of the form is not clear, Mr. Crescenzo testified credibly that the warranty was applicable to repairs of the existing system as well as to replacement of the system. While the maximum the homeowner might have to pay is clearly indicated on the form, the costs of a repair short of replacement is not listed. Mr. Crescenzo testified that a $1,000 deposit is required for any job requiring a permit, as the permit itself is $300, and that he told the homeowner that he would not know the extent of the repair needed until he started the work. Mr. Wescott signed the estimate. Despite the language on the estimate that a new drainfield may be needed, Mr. Wescott understood that his drainfield would be replaced. While he admits signing it, he did not recall seeing the statement that deposits are non-refundable, notwithstanding that it is printed in bold type. His understanding appears to be based, in part, on a discussion between Mr. Wescott and Mr. Crescenzo about the continued vitality of the D-box. Mr. Wescott understood Mr. Crescenzo to say that the life of the septic system was approximately 19 years (the age of his home), and that if the drainfield was not replaced, the Wescotts would in all likelihood be calling him back in a matter of months to replace it because it was nearing the end of its expected life-span. He also understood Mr. Crescenzo to say that the D-box was obsolete and would not be replaced when the drainfield was replaced. Mr. Crescenzo, on the other hand, testified that he always maintained that they would try to repair the existing drainfield but may have to replace it. In the event that the system was replaced, D-boxes are no longer used and the existing one would not be replaced. Mr. Crescenzo denied stating that the life of a drainfield is 19 years, stating that drainfields do not have a standard life expectancy.1/ Mr. Crescenzo also emphasized that the work performed, whether a repair to the existing drainfield or a replacement, was subject to a 10-year warranty, thus making any statement that the company would just have to come back in a few months nonsensical. Mr. Crescenzo’s testimony is credited. Mr. Crescenzo applied for a permit on June 18, 2014, which costs $300. The permit application was to repair or replace the distribution box, not to replace the drainfield, and noted that the D-Box had collapsed. Mr. Crescenzo stated on the application that it may be possible to fix the D-Box and remove roots. The permit was issued for OSTDS repair on June 20, 2014. According to Stephen Kataro, an engineer for the septic tank program for Hernando County who approved the application and inspected the repair, the permit gave the option to replace the drainfield if necessary, based upon what was found during the repair. This approval is consistent with Department policy. On approximately July 3, 2014, Jeremiah Blake, a technician for Johns by John, went to the Wescott home to work on the septic system. Mr. Blake drove a Johns by John truck equipped with the standard equipment to install a drainfield. When he arrived at the home, the system was already uncovered. Mr. Blake discussed the repairs with Mr. Wescott, stating that he could do the drainfield or fix the D-Box. He determined that replacement of the outlet pipe leading to the D-Box addressed the problem, and that there was no need to replace the drainfield, as all drains were taking water. Mr. Blake completed the repair and used Mr. Wescott’s garden hose with a jet-spray nozzle to spray inside the D-Box and clean out the lines. There is an alternative repair method referred to as “jetting” that requires a separate permit that Respondents did not obtain. Jetting requires specialized equipment that Respondents do not own. The unrebutted testimony of both Mr. Wescott and Mr. Blake is that Mr. Blake used a simple garden hose to clear the lines. He is familiar with what the Department refers to as jetting, but has never operated jetting equipment. He uses the term “jetting” because it is an easier way to describe what he does with a simple garden hose to clear the D-Box of sand. When Mr. Blake replaced the pipe leading to the D-Box, he broke sprinkler lines in the area. Sprinkler lines are often, if not always, damaged in OSTDS repairs. Respondents had arranged the day before for a timed inspection, for which they paid an additional fee. The purpose of a timed inspection is to be able to complete the job and have it inspected as soon as it is finished. Mr. Kataro came out to the property at approximately 9:00 a.m., inspected the work performed, determined that it met permit requirements to restore function, and approved it.2/ Mr. Kataro left the site before Mr. Blake covered the system, consistent with standard practice. While Mr. Wescott was present when Mr. Kataro arrived to inspect the work, there was no testimony to indicate Mr. Wescott advised the inspector that he was unhappy with the scope of work performed. Mr. Blake had a backhoe on the premises for use in covering the area. He testified that he covered the system, including the broken sprinkler pipes, and that he always does so and then notifies the homeowner about the need to fix the sprinkler pipes. Both Mr. Blake and Mr. Wescott testified that Mr. Wescott asked Mr. Blake to remove some sod for him nearby, and paid him cash for doing so. According to Mr. Blake, Mr. Wescott seemed satisfied at this point. It seems inconceivable that Mr. Wescott would be willing to pay additional funds for Mr. Blake to remove sod if he had not covered the system he was supposed to cover and if he was unhappy with the work (or lack of work) performed, and yet not say anything to Mr. Blake about covering the completed repair. Mr. Wescott expected that since the drainfield was not replaced, he would receive some portion of the $1,000 he paid back. Had he realized that the repair would cost that much, he would have gotten estimates from other contractors. He viewed replacing the drainfield as preventative maintenance. Based on this belief, after Mr. Blake left the premises, Mr. Wescott called Mr. Crescenzo and asked about a refund. He did not complain, however, about the system not being covered. Mr. Crescenzo informed him that there would be no refund, as the work order clearly indicates that deposits are non-refundable. The Wescotts called the Johns by John office to get an itemized receipt for insurance purposes. There was some delay in receiving a receipt, so they went to the office to obtain it in person. Initially, they were given a receipt stating that the D- box had been replaced. When they questioned this and told the person working in the office that the D-box had not been replaced, she made some phone calls to verify the work performed. The office worker prepared a new receipt while speaking to someone, presumably Jeremiah Blake, on the phone. The new receipt stated, “connected tank to distribution box. Leveled D-Box to drainfield. Jetted drainfield lines.” The change in the description appears to have occurred more because the person working in the office misunderstood the scope of work performed, rather than any nefarious intent to defraud. Further, the reference to jetting was consistent with both Mr. Blake and Mr. Crescenzo’s shorthand notation for cleaning the line with the garden hose, as opposed to the alternative repair method requiring additional permitting. As noted in paragraph 16, the sprinkler lines were broken during the repairs. Mr. Wescott replaced the broken pipes, and placed bricks underneath them to hold them in place. He was still unhappy about not having a new drainfield in place, and felt that he had been defrauded. On August 4, 2014, Mr. Wescott filed a complaint with Albert Gray, the Environmental Manager at the Department. At the very end of his two-page letter, Mr. Wescott stated that the broken irrigation pipes have been repaired and the hole is still wide open with the tank cover exposed. The Department does not regulate the prices to be charged for repairs or installation of new systems: that is between the contractor and the homeowner. There is more involved to complete the job than the time that the workman is on the premises actually performing the repair. For example, in addition to the cost of the permit application, additional time is necessary to perform a site evaluation and soil test. Whether or not the drainfield must be replaced, the materials must be available to install should it be necessary, as well as the skilled workman and equipment (truck, backhoe, etc.). Further, it is clear that, had Respondents installed a new drainfield, the cost would have been much higher than what the Wescotts actually paid, not only to pay for the drainfield, but also to replace a large section of sod and a larger portion of the sprinkler system. Regardless of whether a new drainfield is installed, contractors are required to cover the OSTDS when they work on it. As a result of the Wescott’s complaint, Inspector Kataro went back out to the Wescott home to inspect the site. He found that the D-Box was lying open and exposed, with no earth covering the system. He took pictures of the area, which were admitted into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibits J and K. The pictures show two exposed sprinkler pipes, supported at one end by bricks. One picture shows a bucket positioned over the distribution box, while the other shows the box sealed but not covered. Mr. Kataro testified that the pictures look similar to what he saw when he inspected the property after the repair was completed in July 2014. However, he could not say whether the sprinkler system pipes were broken before, or whether the bricks supporting the pipes were there previously. The testimony is clear that, after the job was inspected, Mr. Wescott made repairs to the sprinkler system that would require the area to be uncovered and Mr. Wescott acknowledged that he placed the bricks under the sprinkler pipes. Mr. Kataro recalled that Mr. Blake had a backhoe on the premises at the time of repair, but Mr. Kataro left the site before the area would have been covered. There is credible testimony that Mr. Blake covered the area and credible testimony that he did not. Other evidence presented is more consistent with a finding that the area was covered, at least minimally. The equipment for covering the area was by all accounts on site, and Mr. Blake used that equipment to remove sod for Mr. Wescott. It makes little sense for him to use the equipment to remove the sod but not use it for covering the D-Box and surrounding area. Moreover, had Mr. Blake covered the area, it would have to be uncovered to fix the sprinkler pipes. The Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Blake, as an agent of Respondents, failed to cover the D-box. Respondent Crescenzo happened to be at the Department on August 14, 2014, picking up permits when he learned of the complaint from Mr. Wescott. He was very upset about the complaint and immediately wrote a response while still at the Department. In his response, he denied stating that the drain field would definitely be replaced, and emphasized that by repairing the pipe leading to the D-Box the homeowner saved a substantial amount of money, including not only the cost of installing the drain field, but the re-sodding of his yard and more substantial repair of his sprinkler system. Although clearly unhappy about the complaint, Respondent Crescenzo stated, “If the homeowner wants the system just replaced they should have said that at the time of the job. Or we could still do it if they insist for the original agreed price.” Mr. Wescott has not elected to accept Respondents’ offer. In his response, Crescenzo also referred to “jetting,” but used it in the same informal manner as Mr. Blake. His informal reference did not change the unrebutted testimony regarding the scope of work performed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 2015.
The Issue Whether the alleged violation exists and, if so, whether orders for corrective action should be made final against respondents or either of them?
Findings Of Fact On October 17, 1984, Sunshine acquired from R & F what had been a filling station at the corner of U.S. Highway 98 and Laurie Avenue in Bay County, Florida. The old gas pumps had been moved some time before October 17, 1984. Only loose pipe connections leading to the underground storage tanks remained. The deed K & F executed in favor of Sunshine made no mention of these tanks. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Sunshine later contracted with Jake Walters, who began construction the following April to convert the site into a convenience store with gas pumps. On January 25, 1985, long before bringing any petroleum product onto the property, Jake Walters' construction foreman, John Kenneth Barnes, began taking up the two-foot slab of concrete that overlay K & F's underground storage tanks. The ground underneath the concrete smelled of gasoline. James Guris, who was overseeing the job for Sunshine, ordered work stopped and told Harold Millis, Sunshine's vice-president for real estate and construction, about the feel and smell of the soil. When Mr. Millis learned of the situation, he decided that DER should be notified. Because by then it was too late in the day to reach DER, Jim Guris called DER's office in Panama City on the following Monday, January 28, 1985. He spoke to DER's Grady Swann, who told him to file a discharge notification form with DER. Mr. Swann said removal of the underground tanks could go forward. Before removing the storage tanks, Mr. Barnes, or somebody at his direction, measured the depth of the tanks with a stick to determine how deep to dig. In this way two or three inches of gasoline were discovered in the bottom of each tank. Even though workmen secured a pump and pumped gasoline from each underground tank (into a 500-gallon tank mounted on a truck), they were unable to pump the tanks completely dry. In each of the three underground tanks, about a half inch of gasoline remained. With a crane and lifting rigs, they raised the tanks in an upright position, without spilling any gasoline. Except inside where the half inch of gasoline stood, the tanks and appurtenant pipes and tubing were dry. Mr. Guris ordered pressure tests done on the tanks, each a cylinder some five feet in diameter. Two of the tanks passed this test, but the third failed. That tank had a hole approximately one quarter inch in diameter a little left of center, about half way up one end of the tank. Groundwater on the site came within four and a half or five feet of the surface in early February of 1985. Because it contains less than 10,000 parts per million total dissolved solids, it is properly classified as G-II. A marine clay separates the surficial aquifer from the Floridan, but the surficial aquifer recharges the Floridan. Northeast of where the storage tanks were dug up and 300 to 350 feet way a two-inch well 390 feet deep supplies water from the Floridan aquifer to three households. Nobody has detected any odor or taste of gasoline in water from those wells. Grady Swann took soil samples on site on February 8 and again on February 26, 1985. On his first visit, he noticed no sheen on the surface of the water standing in the area excavated around the old tanks, smelled no odor emanating from the standing water and did not take a sample. On his second visit, he did notice evidence of groundwater contamination and took water as well as soil samples. Mr. Swann returned on March 11, 1986, with Kenneth L. Busen and Mike Wilson of DER's Operation Response Team and used a power augur to put in temporary wells from which additional water samples were taken. These tests confirmed suspicions that the old gas tanks had leaked and revealed groundwater contamination attributable to gasoline including, in some samples, more than 1,000 times the allowable concentration of benzene. Gasoline seeping through soil leaves residual hydrocarbons which contaminate percolating rain or other groundwater moving through the same soil. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 depicts the probable initial configuration of the plume of hydrocarbons in the vicinity of the old tanks. Contamination is moving down gradient to the northeast, spreading out but growing more dilute. The steps called for by the proposed corrective orders are a reasonable way to mitigate environmental damage.
The Issue Whether Petitioners, Charles and Andrea Abraham, were subject to a discriminatory housing practice by Respondent, Sandy Cove 3 Association, Inc., based on their national origin, in violation of Florida's Fair Housing Act. 1 All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2020), unless otherwise noted.
Findings Of Fact Sandy Cove 3 ("Sandy Cove") is a small development of condominiums located in Sarasota, Florida. Sandy Cove was built in 1973 and consists of 16 units. Sandy Cove is governed and operated by the Association. Petitioners own a two-bedroom condominium in Sandy Cove. Petitioners purchased their unit (#220) in 2009. They primarily use their condominium as rental property. At the final hearing, Petitioner Charles Abraham testified that he and his wife, Andrea, reside primarily in Maryland and Hungary. The focus of this dispute centers on a corkscrew of copper water pipes that runs from the top of the water heater in Petitioners' condominium into the primary water pipes within the unit's walls. This matter specifically concerns who should pay to replace these pipes. Each party believes that the other side should bear the costs. In their initial housing discrimination complaint filed with the Commission, Petitioners attribute the Association's refusal to replace the copper pipes in their condominium to discrimination based on their national origin (Hungarian). At the final hearing, Mr. Abraham testified that, sometime in 2016, Petitioners noticed that the water pipes connected to their water heater were beginning to show ominous signs of age and wear. The bends and joints of several pipe sections had turned green and were developing a buildup of corrosion. Petitioners felt that the pipes were a "disaster" waiting to happen. Mr. Abraham stated that initially he attempted to repair the pipes himself by applying glue to several connections. However, because he noticed a small amount of water leakage "from time to time," he believed that the pipes were in real danger of cracking or popping open. In 2018, Petitioners turned to the Association for assistance in fixing the potential plumbing problem. On November 28, 2018, Petitioners wrote the Association requesting it to repair their pipes. Thereafter, according to Mr. Abraham, the parties exchanged "around 100 emails" discussing how the pipes should be fixed, and who should pay for the repairs. Eventually, in the summer of 2019, Sandy Cove management contacted Daniel's Plumbing Service to inspect Petitioners' plumbing situation. On July 29, 2019, a plumber from Daniel's Plumbing Service examined Petitioners' water heater and the pipes attached to it. Following his inspection, the plumber wrote on the service invoice: Arrived and found corrosion on copper adapters to water heater. Water heater is 30 gallon electric that is 19 years old. Water heater should be replaced. Relief valve is 1/2" which should be changed to 3/4". Gate valve to water heater is no good and also needs to be replaced. No leaks at this time. The plumber then added: Notes-Dylan from management said to pick up-no further work is to be done at this time. He said work that is to be done is homeowners responsibility. Mr. Abraham testified that, after the plumbing inspection, the Association informed him that the pipes located inside his condominium were his responsibility as the unit owner, not the Association's responsibility. Mr. Abraham declared that the Association has refused to pay to replace the copper pipes in his unit. Mr. Abraham claimed that the Association's response was contrary to what he had seen and heard regarding the water pipes in other units. He insisted that the Association has paid to replace pipes for other condominium owners within Sandy Cove. Mr. Abraham specifically believed that in 2016, the Association repaired or replaced pipes with similar issues in units 115, 116, 117, 215, and 216. To support his position, Mr. Abraham relayed that, in 2017, the Association collected a special assessment from every unit owner specifically to cover the plumbing issues at Sandy Cove. Mr. Abraham recounted that he personally paid the Association $2,100. Consequently, Petitioners were quite frustrated that, after paying the Association several thousand dollars specifically for Sandy Cove plumbing problems, the Association refused his request for assistance to fix his own copper pipes. Seeking to confirm the necessary repairs, Petitioners hired two additional plumbers to inspect the water pipes in their unit. A plumber from Michael Douglas Plumbers visited Petitioners' condominium on September 9, 2020, and documented the following: Proposal to replace copper piping in water heater closet (very corroded and recommend replacing) * * * All piping from wall to water heater to be in PEX with new ballvalves Water heater is 20 yrs old 30 gal low (30 amp breaker) recommended replacement. * * * Replacement will cost … $1511.76 … this price includes replacing pipes as well. Petitioners also introduced the testimony of Robert DeForge, the current Operations Manager for Daniels Plumbing Service. Mr. DeForge was not the plumber who inspected Petitioners' water heater in July 2019. However, as a Master Plumber with over 30 years of plumbing experience, he credibly expounded on the description written on the July 29, 2019, invoice. Mr. DeForge explained that copper pipes are no longer favored within the plumbing industry. Instead, the current industry standard is to use PVC pipes (polyvinyl chloride – a synthetic plastic) for cold water pipes and CPVC pipes for hot water (CPVC is designed to handle a hotter temperature range). Regarding the status of Petitioners' pipes, Mr. DeForge confirmed that copper pipes can corrode over time. Following his review of a photograph of Petitioners' copper pipes and water heater, Mr. DeForge opined that the corrosion about which Petitioners complain did not result from a water leak, but is due to electrolysis from metal on metal contact (galvanized pipe to copper pipe). Mr. DeForge further remarked that corrosion can lead to water leaks, which will require the pipes to be replaced. At that point, if Petitioners are experiencing leaking pipes, Mr. DeForge would recommend that the current copper pipes be replaced with PVC/CPVC pipes. Mr. DeForge also commented that a pipe replacement job would likely increase the size of the pipes connected to the water heater. The 1/2" copper pipes currently attached to Petitioners' water heater would be replaced with 3/4" PVC/CPVC pipes. Mr. DeForge added that the pipes could be replaced without having to displace Petitioners' current water heater. The procedure would require an adapter to connect the 3/4" PVC pipe to the 1/2" relief valve affixed atop the existing water heater. Addressing the cost of the plumbing services to rectify the problem, Mr. DeForge testified that simply replacing the pipes above the water heater will cost about $150. To replace everything (new pipes and new water heater), the plumbing services would cost approximately $1,000 to $1,200. Mr. Abraham expressed that Petitioners' ultimate goal is to have the Association pay to replaced the copper pipes in his unit. Regarding the water heater, Mr. Abraham stated that he understands that the old water heater is his responsibility as the unit owner. Therefore, Petitioners are prepared to bear that expense. That being said, Mr. Abraham asserts that the water heater is functioning perfectly fine at present. Therefore, the only problem that needs to be remedied at this moment is the condition of the aging copper pipes. In doing so, however, Mr. Abraham added that the current plumbing situation is complicated by the fact that, to install new PVC/CPVC pipes, the relief valve connecting the water heater to the (new) pipes should be replaced. And, if the relief valve must be replaced, then Mr. Abraham asserts that the water heater should be replaced, as well. Mr. Abraham estimates that the entire service job will cost between $1,500 and $2,000. John Meuschke testified on behalf of the Association. Mr. Meuschke currently serves as president of the Association's board of directors, a position he has held for over 11 years. He also owns a unit in Sandy Cove. Mr. Meuschke stated that, generally, the Association assumes all financial responsibility for maintaining and repairing the "common elements" within Sandy Cove. Mr. Meuschke explained that the "common elements" consist of everything outside the individual condominium units. Conversely, the individual owners are responsible for the maintenance and repair costs for issues occurring inside their units' walls. Regarding Petitioners' specific complaint, Mr. Meuschke recounted that the Association received Petitioners' 2018 correspondence regarding a water leak in their unit. Mr. Meuschke advised, however, that the Association declined to pay for the requested repairs because the copper pipes which Petitioners sought to replace were located inside Petitioners' unit, directly above the water heater to be precise. Accordingly, Mr. Meuschke contended that Petitioners were responsible for any costs associated with the pipes' repair or replacement. Conversely, Mr. Meuschke stated that if the water pipes were leaking inside the walls that divide the separate units, the Association would have assumed financial responsibility for any plumbing costs. Because the inspection by Daniels Plumbing Service revealed, "no leaks at this time," however, Mr. Meuschke asserted that nothing indicated that the Association should pay for any repairs involving Petitioners' copper pipes. Further, replacing a unit's water heater is the sole responsibility of each condominium owner, because it too is located within the confines of an individual unit at Sandy Cove. To support the Association's position, Mr. Meuschke referenced the Declaration of Condominium of Sandy Cove 3 (the "Declaration"). In determining who is financially responsible for repairs, Mr. Meuschke pointed to Article 6, entitled Maintenance, Alteration and Improvement, which provides: By the Association. The Association shall maintain, repair and replace at the Association's expense: All portions of a Unit, except interior surfaces, contributing to the support of the Unit, which portions shall include but not be limited to load- bearing columns and load-bearing walls. All … plumbing, … and other facilities for the furnishing of utility services contained in the portions of a Unit maintained by the Association, and all such facilities contained within a Unit that service part or parts of the Condominium other than the Unit within which contained. * * * By the Unit Owner. The responsibility of the Unit Owner shall be as follows: To maintain, repair, and replace, at his expense, all portions of his Unit except portions to be maintained, repaired and replaced by the Association. Such shall be done without disturbing the rights of other Unit Owners. * * * 6.5) Common Elements, By the Association. The maintenance and operation of the common elements shall be the responsibility of the Association as a common expense. Mr. Meuschke pithily explained that a unit owner owns everything from the paint on the Unit's walls inward, and the Association is responsible for everything from the walls out. Mr. Meuschke also voiced that the Association collects a monthly assessment from each condominium owner in Sandy Cove. This money is designated for the Association's annual operating budget. The assessments also pay for the upkeep of the Sandy Cove "common elements," as well as any necessary repairs of the same. Mr. Meuschke relayed that occasionally the Association imposes a special assessment against the unit owners to generate additional funds for the Association's operating budget. Pertinent to Petitioners' dispute, in March 2017, the Association levied an additional charge on all Sandy Cove condominiums. Mr. Meuschke confirmed that owners of one-bedroom units were assessed in the amount of $1,908, and two-bedroom units (including Petitioners) were tasked to pay an additional $2,100. The purpose of the Special Assessment was to replenish the Association's reserves, as well as pay for several unexpected plumbing issues. Mr. Meuschke explained that these plumbing issues concerned the original cast iron pipes that ran within the walls between the units. Several of these pipes had deteriorated and burst causing a number of active leaks. Because the cast iron pipes were not located inside the individual units, the Association considered them "common elements" and assumed the repair/replacement costs as an Association responsibility. None of the special assessment funds, however, were designated for repairs to Petitioners' unit or to pipes inside any other unit. To conclude, Mr. Meuschke steadfastly refuted Petitioners' allegation that the Association's decision regarding Petitioners' request for plumbing repairs was unfair. He specifically rejected Petitioners' claim that the Association took any action against Petitioners, or denied them services, based on their national origin. On the contrary, Mr. Meuschke asserted that the Association would have made the same decision regarding any unit owners' request to replace the copper pipes above the water heater located inside the boundaries of their condominium. Mr. Meuschke maintained that the Association's common and consistent practice has been to only pay to repair plumbing issues located in the Sandy Cove "common elements." Mr. Meuschke maintained that the Association has never paid to replace pipes or repair plumbing problems that have occurred inside an individual unit. Instead, the unit owner has always been responsible for that repair or maintenance activity. Petitioners offered no evidence to prove otherwise. Based on the competent substantial evidence in the record, the preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the Association discriminated against Petitioners based on their national origin. Accordingly, Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proving that the Association committed unlawful discrimination in violation of the FHA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order determining that Respondent, Sandy Cove 3 Association, Inc., did not commit a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioners and dismissing their Petition for Relief. 4 See, e.g., Gooden v. Internal Rev. Serv., 679 Fed. Appx. 958, 966 (11th Cir. 2017)(“[G]eneral allegations, based on mere speculation and hunches, in no way establish that any alleged [discriminatory activity] was race-, gender-, or disability based.”). DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Abraham Andrea Abraham Post Office Box 162 Highland, Maryland 20777 Brett Stolson Argus Property Management, Inc. 2477 Stickney Point Road, Suite 118A Sarasota, Florida 34231 Robert Braland 4413 Claybrooke Drive Lothian, Maryland 20711 S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 2021. Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Paul Edward Olah, Esquire Law Offices of Wells Olah, P.A. 1800 Second Street, Suite 808 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a variance for a reduced setback of four feet from Petitioner's well to a building pad treated with pesticide should be denied by the Department of Health.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner resides on property consisting of 7.5 acres at 3665 Darby Road, New Smyrna Beach, Volusia County, Florida. Since Petitioner receives no public utility service at his home, he has a septic system and potable drinking water well on his property. However, Petitioner's family does not drink the water from the well. The family purchases bottled water for drinking purposes. The well water is used for other household purposes, such as cleaning and bathing. There are other locations on Petitioner's property for a well. The evidence demonstrated that Petitioner has or had alternative locations for the well. Petitioner built a 1681 square foot barn utilizing an old concrete foundation from a previous barn. Petitioner's well is located in the southwest corner of the old barn's foundation and four feet from the new barn's foundation. The building plans for the barn, submitted to Volusia County, clearly indicated the location of Petitioner's well within four feet of the new barn's foundation. Even with this information Volusia County issued a building permit for the new barn. There were other locations for the barn on Petitioner's property which Petitioner would have utilized had he known of the setback requirements when he first permitted his barn. Volusia County required the new barn's foundation to be elevated. In order to elevate the sub-floor for the new barn's foundation, Petitioner placed a layer of visqueen on the sub- floor, or old concrete floor of the old barn, then added a layer of sand and poured concrete on top of the sand layer. The sand layer is encased in concrete. The concrete encasement does not necessarily prevent leaks from above given the porous nature of concrete. Additionally, the condition of the old barn floor, i.e. whether it has cracks, is not known. The Volusia County building code requires that the soil under a foundation be treated for termites. After Petitioner's contractor added the sand layer, he spread one four-pound bag of 90 percent Sevin dust, a common garden pesticide, on top of the sand. The application rate was within normal application rates for the barn area. The Sevin dust was not applied with any pressure to force penetration into the soil. More than seven days later the contractor poured the new concrete foundation on the pesticide-treated sand layer. The label on the Sevin dust package indicates that 10 percent Sevin dust may be applied to vegetables up to the day of harvest and in some instances 3 to 7 days before harvest, depending on the type of crop. However, the package does not indicate that a treated crop is edible for human consumption without first washing the crop or other processing of the crop. Therefore, a lack of danger from contamination has not been shown. Indeed, the evidence did not show that health would not be adversely affected by use of Petitioner's well given this major deviation from the setback requirements and the soil in the area. A Volusia County building inspector informed Petitioner's contractor that the close proximity of Petitioner's potable well to the area treated with pesticide was a violation of state health codes and could not be approved because the well did not meet the requirement of having a 25-foot separation from soil treated with pesticide. The contractor informed Steve Baur, a Department of Health employee, about the violation. The deviation of 21 feet from the 25-foot setback requirement is a major deviation. Petitioner applied to DOH for a variance to allow him to utilize his potable drinking water well. Petitioner's variance application was denied by the variance committee and Dr. Sharon Heber, Department of Health Environmental Health Director, for the following reasons: Section 64E-8.009(2), F.A.C., allows the granting of variances to 'prevent excessive hardship only in cases involving a minor deviation from established standards when the hardship was not intentionally caused by the applicant, where no reasonable alternative exists, and where proper use of the system will not adversely affect public health.' According to information supplied by the Volusia County Health Department, the treated slab is located 4 feet from the existing well. This is a major deviation from the established standards. The well completion report for the existing well indicates coarse shell starting at 10 feet and continuing down to 60 feet. This material provides no filtration and/or confinement for the pesticide.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for a variance. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 14th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Edward N. Pollack 3665 Darby Road New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32168 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William Langue, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health Bin A00 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Tim Youngquist is a licensed water well contractor, holding Florida license #2172, and is principal of Youngquist Brothers, Inc. The South Florida Water Management District, operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40E, Florida Administrative Code, is responsible for the permitting and regulation of nonexempt water well drilling within the District's geographical jurisdiction. Unless specifically exempted from permitting requirements, each well must be separately permitted prior to construction. Due to the unique characteristics of wells, well construction permits are issued separately for each individual well and are not issued on a site basis. The Respondent, in the summer of 1990, contracted with the City of Fort Myers, Florida, to construct twenty public water supply wells and eight monitoring wells, all located within the existing city well field site. The Respondent was responsible for compliance with all applicable permit requirements. On December 19, 1990, the Respondent obtained the appropriate city permit for the drilling operation, but did not at that time apply for or obtain any permits as required by the Petitioner. The City of Fort Myers permits wells in compliance with the Standard Plumbing Code, but does not have a well construction ordinance. The city permit does not substitute for the Petitioner's well construction permits. On April 9, 1990, the Petitioner received an inquiry from a representative of the Lee County Health Department as to whether the Respondent had obtained well construction permits from the Petitioner. At that time, there had been no application for the permits submitted to the Petitioner by the Respondent. On April 10, 1990, Don Douglas, Youngquist Brothers manager for the Fort Myers city wells project, contacted the Petitioner and inquired as to the method for obtaining permits for the well construction. Mr. Douglas was advised to immediately cease any well construction operations at the City of Fort Myers well field pending receipt of the appropriate permits. On April 11, 1991, Petitioner's staff inspected the City of Fort Myers well field site, and observed six newly- completed public supply wells on the site. Petitioner's staff again instructed Respondent's representative to cease any further activity. There is no evidence that, subsequent to the Petitioner's directions to cease operations at said site, any additional construction activities occurred. On April 16, 1991, Petitioner's staff again inspected the City of Fort Myers well field site, and observed three additional public supply wells on the site, two of which were surface-cased with the third well appearing to be completed. On May 23, 1991, a Notice of Violation (NOV) was issued to Youngquist citing the failure to obtain well construction permits for the seven completed public water supply wells and the failure to provide notice to the Petitioner 24 hours in advance of the placement of grout in the annular spaces of the seven wells. The Petitioner's staff determined that the extent of the two surface- cased wells construction did not prohibit appropriate inspection even though the wells would also require permitting. As stated in the NOV, the Petitioner sought a fine of $5,000 for the violations. Further, because the Petitioner's staff was first informed by the Respondent's representative that there were six wells completed on site when in fact there were nine, the NOV sought the imposition of a 20% penalty applied to the $5,000, and the suspension of Respondent's well drilling license. Subsequent to the issuance of the NOV, the Petitioner's staff met with Respondent's project manager to discuss the matter. At that time, it was determined that there actually were only six fully completed public water supply wells and three additional surface-cased but incomplete public water supply wells. The Petitioner dropped the proposed 20% penalty and suspension of Youngquist's license. However, subsequent to this discussion, the parties could not resolve the dispute and an Administrative Complaint was filed. 1/ Six individual well construction permits are required for the six completed public water supply wells located at the City of Fort Myers well field. The evidence establishes that the Respondent constructed and completed the six public water supply wells without obtaining the appropriate permits from the Petitioner. The failure to obtain the six permits constitutes six separate violations. The evidence establishes that, in completing the wells, the Respondent failed to notify the Petitioner 24 hours in advance of placement of grout in the annular spaces of the six completed wells. The failure to notify the Petitioner 24 hours in advance of placement of grout in the annular spaces of the six completed wells constitutes six separate violations. There is no evidence that, prior to initiation of the well construction activities and prior to the discovery of the violations by Petitioner's staff, the Respondent made any attempt to comply with the permitting requirements of the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine of $4,500.00 against Tim Youngquist. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1992.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Sections 455.227(1)(a) and 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Maples is a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida. He holds license no. PE 10214, and he practices engineering in the Panama City, Florida, area. During all times pertinent Mr. Maples held an active license and practiced pursuant to it. FEMC is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Board pursuant to Section 471.038, Florida Statutes. The Board exists pursuant to Section 471.007, Florida Statutes, and is authorized to discipline engineers under its authority by Section 455.225, Florida Statutes. Mr. Maples signed and sealed three pages of sprinkler system plans for the Wellness Center at Gulf Coast Community College (Wellness Center), located in Panama City, Florida. These plans were admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. No date can be observed on the seal on Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. It either is illegible or a date was never placed upon it. Hydraulic calculations, which use drawings as a source document, and which appear to coincide with Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, were dated November 15, 2001. It is deduced, therefore, that Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 was drawn on or about November 15, 2001. Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent on April 1, 2005. The Administrative Complaint alleged that the plans and calculations for the Wellness Center demonstrated negligence in the practice of engineering. That charge resulted in an final hearing conducted by Administrative Law Judge Stephen Dean on August 11, 2005. That case number was DOAH Case No. 05-2049PL. On October 13, 2005, Judge Dean recommended that the Complaint be dismissed. One of the allegations of negligence in 05-2049PL, related to a charge that inadequate water would be supplied to the hydraulically most demanding (HMD) area in the event of a fire. It was alleged, and proof was elicited, that a single 1 and 1/4-inch pipe traveling from a riser, across the men's shower area to the women's shower area, would be insufficient. This pipe is identified on Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 as a line between Node 45 and Node 25. This pipe leads to a "T" intersection and further piping carries water, when activated, to the women's shower area. The matter of whether adequate water would be supplied to the HMD devolved into whether the plans called for one 61- foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch diameter pipe, or two 61-foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch diameter pipes. Because there was no pump provided on the drawings, and in fact there was no plan to install a pump, two 61-foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch diameter pipes were necessary to provide sufficient water in case of fire. As was illuminated in Case No. 05-2049PL, calculations were made, based on the drawings, in order to ensure that the HMD area will receive 1500 square feet of coverage per sprinkler head required by the contractor. The coverage required by the contractor exceeds that required by National Fire Protection Association-13 standards. HMD calculations are made at a point most remote from the source of water. The hydraulic calculations are produced through the use of a commercially produced computer program. Calculations from Case No. 05-2049PL became Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 in this case. At the hearing in Case No. 05-2049PL, the allegation that the fire sprinkler plans signed and sealed by Mr. Maples would not provide adequate water pressure to the HMD area was rejected by Judge Dean. This is because Mr. Maples claimed that the plans, when viewed in light of the calculations, actually depicted two 61-foot long pipes, 1 and 1/4-inch and Judge Dean, while determining that the depiction was inadequate for that purpose, found in essence that adequate water would be provided to the HMD. Mr. Maples works closely with Chris Thomas, a sprinkler contractor whose license does not permit him to design a fire suppression system that consists of more than 49 heads. Their working arrangement is such that it would be expected that Mr. Thomas would understand Mr. Maples' drawings even if they were not as complete as they would be if the drawings were made for a contractor other than Mr. Thomas. In fact, Mr. Thomas participated in the production of the drawings signed and sealed by Mr. Maples. More than one set of drawings were used for the Wellness Center project. The project came under the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Education. That agency approved the plans and the Florida State Fire Marshal approved the plans, although it is not certain that the plans those agencies approved were Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. There were errors in the data entry on the hydraulic calculations. The building was completed prior to the time Case No. 05-2049PL was heard on August 11, 2005. Using the plans drawn by Mr. Maples, Mr. Thomas's foremen for the Wellness Center installed a single pipe between Node 45 and Node 25. On a weekend subsequent to the hearing in Case No. 05-2049PL, Mr. Thomas went to the Wellness Center and discovered that only one 61-foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch diameter pipe had been installed in the area represented to be between Node 45 and Node 25. Mr. Thomas immediately installed a second 61-foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch diameter pipe. Mr. Maples never went to the site and, accordingly, was unaware at the time he testified in Case No. 05-2049PL, that only one pipe had been installed. The Administrative Complaint lists five statements made by Mr. Maples in Case No. 05-2049PL that are alleged to express "an opinion publicly on an engineering subject without being informed as to the facts relating thereto." The five statements are further alleged to describe testimony that was, "untruthful, deceptive, or misleading in any professional statement or testimony." As noted above, the statements do not cite with particularity to the Transcript in Case No. 05-2049PL. The five statements read as follows: Respondent testified at the hearing that the line on the plans appearing as a single pipe, in fact, represented two pipes, 61 feet long with 1 1/4 inch diameters, running over the men's showers. Respondent testified at the hearing that the intent to install the sprinkler system with two pipes over the men's showers was obvious to anyone with experience in fire sprinkler systems. Respondent testified that he had signed and sealed revised plans showing a second parallel line over the men's showers. Respondent testified that the second 61 foot long 1 1/4 inch diameter pipe was represented in his calculations by a 3 foot length of pipe. Respondent testified that he used pipe lengths in the supporting calculations that match the pipe lengths shown in the plans. The actual testimony of Mr. Maples that addresses the pipes follows below. The initial questions were posed by Mr. Maples' attorney, Mr. Peters at page 260, line 13, of the Transcript in Case No. 05-2049PL. . Q. Okay. Now, the bulk of this allegation was that the hydraulically demanding design area did not have sufficient water pressure. Let's talk about that. Does the most hydraulically demanding area in this project show that it was receiving sufficient water pressure and distribution? A. Yes, the calculations show that specifically. Q. Do you have any concern that the most hydraulically demanding area is being under served? A. I do not. Q. Do the plans -- while they may not be perfect -- do they reasonably and competently show sufficient water pressure getting to the most hydraulically demanding area? A. Yes. (At this point there was a recess. Subsequently, the interrogation continued.) * * * Q. So do the plans and do the calculations show that there's sufficient water getting to the most challenging -- A. Yes, it does. Q. Okay. And let's take a minute to just make sure we review our nodal system. (At this point the Court interjected and moved the questioning away from the nodal system. The nodal system had been reviewed earlier in the hearing.) * * * Q. How is that? Okay. There is a segment called 20 to 25, which is an inch-and-a-quarter, 61 feet long. A. Correct. Q. And is there a parallel pipe in the same plane that runs along that same segment? A. Yes. Q. How can you tell that from this drawing and this set of calculations? A. I can tell on the calculations, because it tells me from 25 to 30, there's a connection. It tells me that 30 is connected to a three-inch main. Q. All right. Can you show these calculations and -- go over them with us and show us how you see that from these documents? A. Where is my set? Q. Right there. That's yours. THE COURT: Let me ask you this, sir. I see where it says that it's connected to that. But by [sic] my question is, it says that it's only 3-feet long. THE WITNESS: Three feet. Yes, sir. Let me -- can I address that? THE COURT: Surely. THE WITNESS: That is -- I will say an input error on it. But I want to tell you that it doesn't make any difference into the function of the system. BY MR. PETERS: Q. Tell us why not. A. It says 25 to 30 tells me there's a line, a connection to a 3-inch -- to node 30. What that tells me is that 3-inch line is feeding this row of sprinklers right here. Even though it says 3 feet, what it does, it has a short segment of line that just gushes water through there and makes those sprinklers flow a whole lot more than it needed. All right. When you put the right length, you put 61 feet in there, it comes back to just about what this line does, and it cuts the sprinkler flow down in those three areas. But it doesn't effect [sic] the function of the system because it doesn't effect [sic] the head loss in the main system where the pressure goes in the 3-inch line. Q. Head loss. Take a minute to try to explain that. A. The water -- it doesn't effect [sic] the pressure that the sprinklers are getting. What it does, when you put 61 feet in there, those three sprinklers that where it shows a 3-feet [sic] connection, it cuts them down from sprinkling a whole lot more water that's needed back to what's required. But as you go along this -- as you go along this line, go along this line where the 3-inch line is up here, at each place on the 3-inch line, there's a branch that goes towards the sprinklers. And each branch line is calculated separately. And the most demanding branch line is what puts the pressure that's required -- the flow -- required a 3-inch line. So what the 3-foot did, it made these three sprinklers right here flow considerably more, because it was just a little short piece of pipe and didn't have any friction loss going down through there. But it didn't effect [sic] -- it didn't effect [sic] the system head. Because that had less head loss than this one did. So when you put -- BY THE COURT: Q. Head loss is effected [sic] by, what? A. The length of pipe. Flow -- the length of pipe and size of pipe. Q. So will a longer piece of pipe -- assuming all the pipes are the same diameter -- does the pipe -- does the head loss on a short piece, is it greater than a long piece? A. Oh, no. Head loss on short pieces are considerably less than a long piece loss. The further it travels, the more pressure it loses. Q. Okay. And the pressure loss is transmitted, if you will, back to the 3-inch main? It effects [sic] the -- A. It effects [sic] what the flow comes from a 3-inch main. The 3-inch main effects [sic] it, because the three-inch main has the water supply, and has the pressure that's pushing it. Q. So the calculation for this system -- A. Yeah. Q.-- even though there's an error, the error is not a critical error? A. No, sir, it does not effect [sic] the function of the system. Q. It doesn't effect [sic] the function of the system. Thank you. A. What it does, it shows a little more water flow. THE COURT: Okay. DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. PETERS: Q. So do the plans -- does it need a pump to get water to this area? A. No, sir. THE COURT: Now, let me ask you a follow up on that. THE WITNESS: All right. THE COURT: After Mr. Schmidt put his input in, and he was basically engaged to do exactly what he did, and that was, to go through the plans, catch any things that he was concerned about, and turn that back to the general contractor so the general contractor could go back to the people he needed to go back to? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: The general contractor came back to you, and you did whatever was necessary to generate the second set of plans that you-all put in, which is your Respondent's 1? MR. PETERS: Well, although Respondent's -- can I ask him a couple of questions? THE COURT: Sure. BY MR. PETERS: Q. Respondent's 1, this is the one that shows the second line, the parallel lines, right? A. Yes, if this is the plan we're looking at, it shows the second -- physically shows -- separated it so anybody could see. THE COURT: It also shows the point of service. THE WITNESS: Yes, it also shows a different point of service. It shows --bring it back up to the 5. BY MR. PETERS: Q. But these don't bear your signature. A. This particular set doesn't. We signed some, but I don't know where they are. That came from Gulf Coast College there. Q. All right. All right. In terms of what this case is directly about, then, do the plans provide pipes with adequate diameters for water pressure to provide protection for the area most remote from the main riser? A. Absolutely. Q. Do the plans provide -- do the plans need to show a pump to increase water pressure for the pipe design use? A. No. Q. And did you use pipe lengths in the supporting calculations that match the pipe lengths shown in the plans? A. Yes. (At this point Mr. Peters addresses another matter. Thereafter, Mr. Campbell proceeded with his cross-examination on Page 268, line 25.) * * * BY MR. CAMPBELL Q. Mr. Maples, there was no testimony about phantom pipes in that previous case, was there? A. No. Q. And you would admit that if there was no pipe underneath this Node 25 pipe, that this fork of six sprinkler heads would not adequately be served by 1-and-a-quarter inch diameter pipe; isn't that correct? A. That's correct, with a caveat. The NFPA 13 has a section that says on the density .1 in a 1500 square feet [sic] area, if it is - - if it says ceiling heights less than 20 feet, and this is 10, that you can reduce the area of sprinkling by 40 percent. So that means, if we did that, we would do 900 square feet, and that would be adequate. Now, if you went strictly by NFPA 13 -- Q. But that's not what you drew here. You drew or attempted to draw 1500 square feet. A. That's what we were told to do. But that's not in accordance with NFPA 13. NFPA 13 is less. And we agree NFPA 13 rules. Q. Now, you initially said this was your initial set of plans before you got any input such as being told to do 1500 square feet; is that correct? A. No, no, I was told to do that to start with. Q. All right. Was that part of the specifications on this job? A. I didn't see it. That was --according to the contractor, that was the specifications from Schmidt or whoever they were. Q. All right. Now, looking at the Respondent's 1 you did not sign. A. That one is not signed, but I know there were some that were signed. Q. Doesn't it appear that in these entries for pressures and static pressures, at some point, there was a whiteout and a reentry on the first page of the sheet? A. I can't tell you that. It may have been. Q. All right. Now, in fact, you have got two separate entries of written information where some of those are different. For instance, the required pressure is different -- A. Yes, because it's a different system. This is one that's not in contention right here. This was the gym. It's got the same static pressures and flows, but this is a different set of calculations of the gym. This has not been -- that was for the gymnasium, just to see if there was enough water. They asked us to do that. Q. Now, is the gymnasium a part of the Wellness Center? I thought that was what the Wellness Center was. A. Well, it's part of the Wellness, yes. But it's a separate part. But this has never been in contention. Q. Well, now, on the set of plans, your initial set of plans, there were no such double entries? A. No, they didn't ask for it then. Q. And this separate set of entries here for the gym -- well, this -– yeah -- is still used by the same riser and the same -- A. Yes, sir. Q. -- point of service. A. Yes, sir. Q. So there would be a separate set of calculations somewhere for the gym; is that what you're saying? A. My understanding, they asked Chris to do a set of calculations just so they would have plenty of water at the gym. That's never been in contention. Because one thing, it's located right at the riser. Q. Now, isn't it a fact, if someone never looked at the calculations but only looked at page 2 of Exhibit P-1, that where the node 25 seems to go up to node 45, there is only one line indicating one pipe? A. Depending on who looks at it. Anybody familiar with the calculations and sprinkler systems would know. Q. If they saw no calculations whatsoever, they just looked at this sheet -- A. I would assume so. If it was Joe Blow out there that knew nothing, he would have probably been, you know -- Q. He would think there's one pipe there. A. Who would do that? Q. So the basis of your statement that anyone that knew that there had to be more than one pipe is -- anyone with experience in fire protection systems would know you could not feed -- A. That's correct. Q. -- 6 heads 60 feet down from the 3-inch pipe on a one -- A. An inexperienced person, probably, correct. Q. Well, now, an experienced person would know automatically you couldn't feed it that way, right? You would have to have a second pipe; that's what you're saying? A. Well, you would have to go by the calculations. I didn't say that. Q. But if you didn't go by the calculations, if you didn't know anything about the calculations, would it be obvious to anyone with experience in fire protection sprinkler systems that at the end of 60 feet of a one-and-a-one-quarter-inch pipe you could not support 50 pounds pressure -- support 6 heads on 1 inch pipe? A. I wouldn't say that. Because if I was an experienced person in fire protection and installation, I would look at that, and I would look for something else to see if there was something else. Q. So that sheet of plans by itself is insufficient even with someone with experience in fire protection? A. No, I didn't say that. I said I would be looking for something else. Q. You said you would be looking for something else. A. He would know that there was something supporting it. And especially a licensed contractor that's licensed to design sprinklers, too. He would obviously know. The statement set forth in paragraph 7, of the Administrative Complaint does not appear in the Transcript in Case No. 05-2049PL. Mr. Maples said nothing about showers. He did not say that the single pipe represented two pipes each of which was 61 feet long. What he said was that the calculations told him that there is a parallel pipe in the same plan as the pipe shown on the drawings. He said he could tell that because the calculations showed from Node 25 to 30 a connection to a 3- inch main. Mr. Maples' testimony in this regard was confusing and difficult to follow but not untruthful, deceptive, or misleading. He was not giving fact testimony but was expressing an opinion. The statement set forth in paragraph 8, of the Administrative Complaint does not appear in the Transcript in Case No. 05-2049PL. Mr. Maples never said that the "intent to install the sprinkler system with two pipes over the men's showers was obvious to anyone with experience in fire sprinkler systems." What he said was, that, "Anybody familiar with the calculations and sprinkler systems would know." He further said that if someone familiar with sprinkler systems would know that two pipes were necessary looked at the plans without the calculations that he "assumed" they would know there should be two pipes. With regard to the statement set forth in paragraph 8, when offered to agree with the statement, ". . . an experienced person would know automatically you couldn't feed it that way, right? You would have to have a second pipe; that's what you are saying?" Mr. Maples declined. In response to the question he said, "Well, you would have to go by the calculations. I didn't say that." Mr. Maples' testimony in this regard was not untruthful, deceptive, or misleading. He was not giving fact testimony but was expressing an opinion. The statement alleged as paragraph 9 does not appear in the Transcript. With regard to other plans, he said in response to a question about Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 that, ". . . it shows the second--physically shows--separated so any body could see." He noted that Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 did not bear his signature but said that he had signed some similar plans. There is no proof in the record that his testimony in this regard was untruthful, deceptive, or misleading. The allegation in paragraph 10 of the Administrative Complaint was that Mr. Maples said that the second 61-foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch diameter pipe "was represented in his calculations by a 3 foot length of pipe." Mr. Maples never uttered that statement. In response to a question from Judge Dean, with regard to the 3-foot long pipe, Mr. Maples said, "That is--I will say an input error on it." Mr. Maples' testimony in this regard was confusing and difficult to follow but not untruthful, deceptive, or misleading. The allegation in paragraph 11 of the Administrative Complaint was that Mr. Maples said that, "he used pipe lengths in the supporting calculations that match the pipe lengths shown in the plans." This allegation approximates a verbatim statement made by Mr. Maples. However, he had earlier noted, and thus qualified the statement when he stated that there was input error. Mr. Maples' testimony in this regard was not untruthful, deceptive, or misleading. The allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint at paragraphs 7 and 8, were fairly alleged as the opinions of Mr. Maples. The opinions alleged are in essence that a person with experience in the fire suppression business could determine from the plans and calculations that a second 61-foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch pipe would run parallel to the pipe shown from Node 25 to 45. After an exhaustive study of the plans and calculations in this case, the Administrative Law Judge has not been able to conclude that the testimony as to the second pipe is borne out by Petitioner's Exhibit 2 or the calculations that are Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Moreover, Judge Dean found that the intent to have two pipes, "was not adequately shown in the original drawings." The foremen sent by Mr. Thomas to install the system did not conclude that two parallel pipes were required. They installed only one. An expert called by FEMC, Larry Simmons, an expert in professional engineering, stated unequivocally in this case that using Mr. Maples' drawings and calculations, he could not determine that a second 61-foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch pipe was called for by the plans. Judge Dean was not misled by Mr. Maples' testimony in Case No. 05-2049PL, with regard to the pipe. This was indicated by his acknowledgement in Finding of Fact 8 in his Recommended Order that the intent to have two pipes, "was not adequately shown in the original drawings." Judge Dean was not called as a witness so that he could reveal if he was misled based on the information that became available after the hearing in Case No. 05-2049PL. It was not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Maples was "untruthful, deceptive, or misleading in any professional statement or testimony." As will be discussed in detail below, Mr. Maples engaged in misconduct in the practice of engineering by expressing an opinion publicly on an engineering subject without being informed as to the facts relating thereto.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board find that Respondent Lester M. Maples did not violate Section 455.227(1)(a), Florida Statutes, but that he offered an opinion publicly on an engineering subject without being informed as to the facts relating thereto in violation of the prohibitions contained in Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that he be reprimanded, placed on two years' probation, and ordered to pay an administrative fine of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 April, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Campbell, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Alvin L. Peters, Esquire Peters & Scoon 25 East 8th Street Panama City, Florida 32401 Paul J. Martin, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Doug Sunshine, Esquire Vice President for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a well-drilling contractor, holding WWC License #7015. Ridge Properties, Inc., which is the developer of Sundance Ridge, hired Respondent to construct private water wells on lots as they were developed in preparation for the construction of residences. On December 5, 1991, Respondent prepared a completion report for a well that he constructed at lot 64 of Sundance Ridge. The report indicates that Respondent installed well casing to a depth of 63 feet, which was two feet into "hard brown rock," as described on the report. The report discloses that the static water table was encountered 78 feet below the top of the well casing. As indicated in the report, Respondent sent no cuttings to Petitioner for this well-drilling job. On April 24, 1992, Respondent prepared a completion report for a well that he constructed at lot 51 of Sundance Ridge. The report indicates that Respondent installed well casing to a depth of 67 feet, which was 12 feet into "bedrock," as described on the report. The report discloses that the static water level was encountered 76 feet below the top of the well casing. As indicated in the report, Respondent sent no cuttings to Petitioner for this well-drilling job. There is no completion report for the well that Respondent constructed at lot 62 of Sundance Ridge. However, based on information from the well tag, Respondent constructed this well on December 5, 1991, and its casing depth does not reach the static water level. There is no completion report for another well on Marshal Road that Respondent constructed for Shamrock Construction. However, Petitioner admits that Respondent has corrected any problems that may have existed regarding this well. The three wells that Respondent drilled for Ridge Properties, Inc. produced water with a substantial amount of particulate matter. The presence of particulate matter, which was largely sand, was attributable to the fact that Respondent failed to drive the well casings below the static water level in these three wells. Contrary to his claims, Respondent did not encounter chert in drilling these three wells or driving the casings for them. Chert is a dense consolidated mass of rock, often silica. It is more typically found in Alachua and Marion Counties than it is in the Sorrento area of Lake County, which is the location of these three wells. Respondent never repaired the three wells in question. Repair would have required driving the casing deeper until it extends below the static water table. Respondent never obtained a variance for driving the casings to a depth shallower than the depth of the static water level. On April 1, 1993, Petitioner issued warning notices for the three Sundance Ridge wells, plus the Shamrock Construction well. When Respondent failed to make the necessary repairs within the time allowed by the warning notices, Petitioner issued a Notice of Violation on August 13, 1993. The Notice of Violation alleges that the casings do not extend to or below the static water level in the four wells and that Respondent has received four warning notices over the "recommended repetitive total." The Notice of Violation seeks an administrative penalty of $2000, costs and attorneys' fees of $186.40, and correction of the violations within 30 days of entry of a final order and filing of completion reports within 15 additional days. Paragraph 15 of the Notice of Violation explains: This Notice of Violation (NOV) will become a Final Order of [Petitioner] and may be used in further disciplinary actions against your water well contractor's license if you do not comply with it, or do not timely request a hearing pursuant to Section 373.333, F.S., and Rule 17-531.400, F.A.C., as explained in this Notice of Rights. The Notice of Violation warns: [Petitioner] is not barred by the issuance of this NOV from maintaining an independent action in circuit court with respect to the alleged violations. Ten days after issuing the Notice of Violation, Petitioner issued a Technical Staff Report, which states that Respondent's water well contractor's license had been placed on six months' probation in 1991 and again in 1992. After Respondent completed repairs, the probationary status was removed in October 1992. The Technical Staff Report states that, since October 1992, Petitioner has cited Respondent for six additional violations of Chapter 40C-3. Two violations were reportedly "resolved." According to the report, Respondent "has attempted to correct the violations at the other four sites, but has been unable to drive the well casing any deeper.. The Technical Staff Report acknowledges that a Notice of Violation was mailed Respondent on August 13, 1993, due to noncompliance with the four warning notices. The Technical Staff Report mentions that Respondent has been issued 23 citations for violations of Chapter 40C-3, including 13 for not extending the casing to or below the static water level. The Technical Staff Report recommends that Respondent be placed on six months' suspension, during which time Respondent shall correct the deficient wells. If repaired by the end of the six months' suspension, then Respondent's license would be placed on six months' probation. During the term of probation, Respondent would be required to notify Petitioner's staff 48 hours in advance of beginning construction of any well so that staff could be present to ensure that the wells were lawfully constructed. The Technical Staff Report, which was mailed to Respondent on or about August 23, 1993, gives him an opportunity to request a formal hearing. On September 10, 1993, Respondent demanded a hearing by letter, which Petitioner received September 13. The demand references a "request for a formal hearing on notice of violation and order for corrective action," which is a reference to the Notice of Violation. The demand states that Respondent received notice of Petitioner's action by certified letter on "August 13, 1993." The demand adds: [Petitioner's] determination in the above matter can destroy [Respondent's] ability to earn a living in his profession, cause [Respondent] to lose his current employment, cause to continue extensive physical and emotional stress exerted on the above [Respondent] by [Petitioner], and cause the unjust ruination of his reputation in the community that he resides. Treating the demand for hearing as applicable to the Notice of Violation, but not the Technical Staff Report, Petitioner referred only the Notice of Violation to the Division of Administrative Hearings and immediately proceeded to suspend Respondent's license, based on his failure to file a separate demand for a hearing on the Technical Staff Report.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order suspending Respondent's license commencing from the effective date of the suspension imposed pursuant to the Technical Staff Report and ending six months thereafter, without regard to whether Respondent has repaired the three Sundance Ridge wells or ever repairs them. ENTERED on April 20, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 20, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Attorney Clare E. Gray St. Johns River Water Management District P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 C. L. Hicks 1935 CR 470 W. Okahumpka, FL 34762
