The Issue Whether or not upon inspection conducted by the Petitioner on February 26, 1976, the Respondent failed to have installed exit lights, signs, and globes for the first and second floors, in violation of Section 509.211(2), Florida Statutes and Rule 7C-1.04(3), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not upon inspection conducted by the Petitioner on February 26, 1976, the Respondent failed to provide a handrail installation from the second to the first floor in violation of Rule 7C-1.03(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent now holds, and on February 26, 1976, held license no. 23-893H, with the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. An inspection conducted by inspectors for the Petitioner on February 26, 1976, done at the Florence Apartments, 710 Northeast 127th Street, North Miami, Florida, revealed globe lights in the areas of the exits of the first and second floors. These lights were white in color and did not indicate by writing that the areas illuminated were in fact exits. There were no other signs or apparatuses indicating the areas as exits. Inspection on that same day, to wit, February 26, 1976, and in the same location revealed that the rear stairwell within the subject building, within the first and second floors of the building, did not have a handrail presently installed on that rear stairway as called for in Rule 7C-1.03(1), Florida Administrative Code. There had been a handrail there before, but it was removed prior to the inspection. The rear stairs were flanked on one side by a full wall running from the floor to the ceiling, and by a parallel waist high wall opposite the full wall, which may be described as a banister. This banister wall was approximately 4" thick, running the length of the stairs, with a flat surface atop the banister. The flat surface spoken of does not serve the function of a handrail. The subject building was constructed prior to January 1, 1970 and is an apartment house within the meaning of Chapter 509,F.S.
Recommendation It is recommended that a fine in the amount of $100.00 be imposed in lieu of suspension or revocation, for the violation as established in count two of the complaint. DONE and ENTERED THIS 8th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George A. Frix Owner 365 Northeast 125th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage The Johns Building 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-1727 FILE NO. 23-893H ROBERT J. GROVER, TRUSTEE, t/a THE FLORENCE APARTMENTS, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Lior Hason is the owner of Britt's Cafe, a restaurant which occupies property owned by the Petitioner's Stanislaw and Kasimiera Budzinski. On or about December 19, 1995, Harry S. Cline, an attorney for Mr. Hason and the Budzinskis, filed an application for a variance from the City of Clearwater's Development Code, for the purpose of eliminating three required parking spaces from the front of the subject property for the construction of an outdoor cafe at 201 South Gulfview Boulevard. The Code requires one parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area, and a variance was required to remove three existing parking spaces from the unit's parking space inventory. The matter was brought before the City's Development Code Adjustment Board at its January 11, 1996 meeting. Mr. Cline appeared at the meeting on behalf of the applicant and presented the project. No one else was present to speak in support of or in opposition to the request. However, four letters in opposition from neighboring business owners were submitted. Notwithstanding these objections, the Board determined that the applicant had substantially met all standards for approval listed in the City's Land Development Code; and upon vote of the Board, the application was approved, subject to certain conditions, by a three to two majority. Mr. Hason entered into discussions with City officials to determine what was necessary. Official City reaction was initially favorable. Mr. Hason was advised of the requirements for the project and had plans drawn which called for a deck with a 35 to 36 inch railing with landscaping around it, and with posts and lights. When the plans were submitted to the City officials, the only change suggested was to raise the railing height to 45 inches, which was done, after which the City approved the plans and the permit was granted. The deck was then constructed exactly according to the approved plans. At some time during 1996, Mr. Hason discussed with some City employees putting an awning over the deck. During these discussions, the City employees sent Mr. Hason a copy of Section 41.221(1)(c), Clearwater City Code, which provides for awnings to be removable. Mr. Hason considered the sending of this Code provision to be tantamount to a favorable reply to his inquiry, and, based on that, he finalized his plans for the installation of a removable awning. The proposed awning is designed in such a fashion as to be extendible and retractable on a frame, capable of easily being pulled up against the front of the building like a drapery. With a minimum of further effort, consisting of the removal a several bolts, the entire awning construction can be removed from the frame. Mr. Hason submitted his application for the variance to install the awning on February 2, 1997. In the interim, the City employees with whom Mr. Hason discussed the project changed their position from favoring the project to opposing it. He was ultimately advised in December 1996 or January 1997 that the awning could not be permitted because an awning could not be approved over a deck for which a permit should not have been issued and for which the issuance was a mistake. Though the Board had not yet voted on the application, no information was given to Mr. Hason as to what he could do to make the project approvable. His application, on February 2, 1997, was submitted because, Hason claims, he had been told, by someone not further identified, that applying for a variance for the awning would make everything right. The Variance Staff Report submitted to the Board by the appropriate City employees acknowledged that the frame over which Mr. Hason proposed to put the awning does not meet code because it was constructed within a required setback area from South Gulfview Boulevard, but since the frame was built pursuant to a City-issued permit, consistent with City policy, the City accepted its existence. In its final recommendation to the Board, the staff concluded that notwithstanding the encroachment into the setback area, the project "appears to comply with all standards for approval, provided attention is given to the external appearance of the cafe:" The staff then went on to recommend approval of the project subject to certain conditions, all of which, Mr. Hason accepts and agrees to. Nonetheless, the Board denied the permit by a vote of four to one. Mr. Hason contends that the Board vote was an attempt by the Board to get back at him because of what it perceived as his failure to comply with the conditions placed upon the issuance of the first permit and his alleged misrepresentation of the scope of his project at the time. Mr. Hason, however, categorically denies he has done anything contrary to the dictates of the City. He went back to City officials many times during the construction of the deck to make sure the project was built as required. The majority of the Board members believe, however, that the deck as constructed, goes far beyond the limited structure approved by the granting of the parking space variance in January 1996. This animosity toward the project can be seen from a review of the audio record of the February 13, 1997, Board meeting where, during a colloquy between a Board member and Mr. Hason, it appeared the member was somewhat put out by the entire situation. His analysis indicates a less than complete recollection of the matter, however. Whereas one of the conditions to the issuance of the initial permit was that the area of the outdoor cafe should not be greater than 25 percent of the indoor area of the restaurant, this member pointed out that the 69 outdoor seats were far in excess of 25 percent of the 115 or so indoor seats. This constituted a confusion of seating as opposed to area. No evidence was presented concerning whether Mr. Hason had violated the area constraint. In the main, however, while it appeared that a majority of the Board members were unhappy about the way the project developed, and expressed the opinion that the project did not conform to what they had intended to approve, there was no indication any member s vote was motivated by anything other than a sincere belief in the correctness of his position. There was no indication of any inappropriate or vindictive action by anyone on the Board or its staff. Stephen Sarnoff, a central permitting specialist with the City reviewed the plans for the initial construction and for the current application. As he recalls, the plans for the initial deck construction did not show any support beams, fans, overhead structure or latticework fencing, and the deck, as built, does not conform to the plans as submitted. City Code requirements call for a railing of from 30 to 42 inches high. The current railing of 45 inches does not conform to that standard, and Mr. Sarnoff is not aware of any request from the City that the railing be raised to that height, as Mr. Hason claims. By the same token, while there is no requirement in the ordinance that a deck be of a certain height, anything higher than 12 inches is considered a structure and a waiver is required. This deck was approved for 12 inches. A certificate of occupancy is usually issued for a deck, but in the instant case, such a certificate has not been issued because the deck, as built, is not in compliance with the 1996 approval. If it is brought into compliance, it will be approved. Sarnoff is aware of and familiar with other outdoor restaurant decks built at various locations in the Clearwater area, as indicated by Mr. Hason. Some are not within the CR-28 zone and do not come under the same standards as are applicable here. Others, which must conform to the instant requirements appear to have movable awnings which are acceptable. Still others are in a different zoning district with different set-back requirements, and some were initially denied, but were subsequently approved when they were brought into compliance with the requirements. John Richter, a senior planner for the City, was the individual who prepared the staff report on the instant project and initially recommended approval, contingent upon changes to the external appearance of the facility. He made suggestions and has discussed the project with Hason on his several visits to the property. He did discuss an awning with Hason at some point, but their discussions did not deal with its mobility. All in all, Mr. Richter concluded that the project appears to meet the standard for approval, provided attention is given to the external appearance of the cafe. David S. Shuford, the City's central permitting director and development code administrator indicated that the variance required for the awning, which was an integral part of the structure already built, was not automatically granted with the granting of the permit for the deck structure. Section 42.221, Clearwater City Code, was adopted to promote a more festival atmosphere in some of the outdoor tourist areas. The intent of subsection (l)(c) of that provision was to require the use of moveable items and to design structures that would meet wind requirements and not interfere with pedestrian traffic. The term "moveable" means what it says, and in Shuford's opinion, from the plans he saw, the proposed awning would not be easily moveable on a daily basis. The Clearwater City Code establishes the area in question as one where, once guidelines are developed, they will be adopted and be complied with. Mr. Shuford opines that the current deck, in the rafter area, goes beyond what was proposed at the time the project was submitted for the parking variance and was approved. This is what appears to be the source of the difficulty the Board members have with it. However, if designed to comply with the guidelines, this awning could be approved. He would agree with the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation so far as they relate to painting and architectural matters.
The Issue Whether Charles Jackson and/or Charles Jackson Architectural Designs (Respondents) committed the offenses alleged in the subject Administrative Complaint, and if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the duty and responsibility to regulate the practice of architecture pursuant to chapters 20, 455, and 481, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Charles Jackson (Mr. Jackson), has never been licensed or certified as an architect in Florida or any other jurisdiction. Respondent, Charles Jackson Architectural Designs, has never been licensed as an architectural business in Florida or any other jurisdiction. At times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Jackson did business in Palm Beach County, Florida, as Charles Jackson Architectural Designs.1/ Mr. Jackson also did business as “Charles Jackson Design Construction” and “Charles Jackson Design.” At some time prior to October 8, 2012, Mr. Jackson entered into a contract with the owners of a residence located in Riviera Beach, Florida, to prepare drawings for an addition to the residence. The addition was a simple storage area. Mr. Jackson prepared the drawings, which he dated October 8, 2012. Mr. Jackson gave the drawings to the owners of the residence so they could obtain a building permit. The City of Riviera Beach requires a duly-licensed architect to sign and seal drawings for any addition to a residence before issuing a building permit for the addition.2/ The building department for the City of Riviera Beach rejected Mr. Jackson’s drawings because they were not signed and sealed by a licensed Florida architect. The owners brought the drawings back to Mr. Jackson, and told him that the drawings had been rejected because they were not signed and sealed by an architect. Mr. Jackson did not advise the owners that they should hire an architect to sign and seal the drawings. Instead, Mr. Jackson took it upon himself to get the drawings signed and sealed by a Florida licensed architect named Michael Hall. Michael Hall died on October 15, 2012. When Mr. Jackson returned the drawings to the owners, a seal and signature purporting to be the seal and signature of Michael Hall had been affixed to the drawings. The seal and signature were dated November 5, 2012.3/ The owners thereafter took the drawings to the building department for the City of Riviera Beach to obtain a permit for the addition. The drawings were rejected because the building officials knew that Michael Hall died prior to November 5, 2012, the date he purportedly signed and sealed the drawings. When the owners confronted Mr. Jackson with the news that the permit had been rejected, Mr. Jackson refunded to the owners the sum of $350.00, the amount they had paid him for the drawings. On July 31, 2014, Petitioner entered against Respondents a “Notice and Order to Cease and Desist” which included an order that Mr. Jackson cease and desist doing business as “Charles Jackson Architectural Designs.”
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, enter a final order that adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order find Respondent, Charles Jackson, guilty of violating section 481.223(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $3,000.00 for that violation. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order require Respondent, Charles Jackson, to cease and desist doing business as Charles Jackson Architectural Design. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order require Charles Jackson to pay the costs of its investigation.4/ DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 8th day of April, 2015.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent engaged in conduct, set forth hereinafter in detail, which amount to wilful or deliberate violation of local law and thereafter abandoned a construction project without just cause, prior to completion.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. The Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting. Respondent is, and has been at all time material hereto, a registered general contractor having been issued license number RG 0006192. On July 15, 1985, Respondent contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Louis Mara to renovate a garage at the Mara home in Hollywood, Florida for a price of $3,000. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Respondent was given, prior to commencement of the job, a $2,000 deposit. Respondent commenced performing the Mara job in Hollywood without first obtaining a building permit. About one month after Respondent commenced completion of the Mara's project, he left the project having completed less than 20% of the work he contracted to perform. Respondent has not returned to the Mara's project in more than two years despite the Mara's plea that he return to complete the work. A review of the official records for the City of Hollywood reveals that Respondent did not obtain any permit to complete the garage renovation for Mr. and Mrs. Louis Mara. Pursuant to Chapter 71-575, Laws of Florida, special acts of 1971, the City of Hollywood has adopted the South Florida Building Code, as revised from time to time, as the building code for the City of Hollywood and its regulations governed the construction, maintenance, repair and condemnation of buildings for the City of Hollywood. (Ordinance #0-71-158, Section 1, 12 22-71 Petitioner's Exhibit 6). As noted, Respondent, or a representative on his behalf, did not appear at the hearing to contest or otherwise refute the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's license number RG 0006192 as a registered general contractor be REVOKED. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1988.
The Issue Whether Summary Final Order should be granted and, if so, whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 9B-3.475 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of a construction company that constructs roof-overs in the Leon County area. A roof-over is a construction method where an existing roof is covered over with an additional layer of roofing material without removing the old roof. The construction method is specifically authorized by section 1510, Florida Building Code, Building Volume (2004 as amended 07/2007), and Section 511, Florida Building Code, Residential Volume (2004 as amended 07/2007). Roof-overs are not considered roof replacements; roof-overs are considered a form of reroofing. As indicated, amended Florida Administrative Code Rule 9B-3.0475 was effective on April 6, 2008. The rule adopted, by reference, the Manual of Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site-Built Single Family Residential Structures (the Manual). In general, Section 101 of the Manual provides the requirements for mitigation as prescribed by law. Section 201.2 provides permissible techniques for accomplishing the requirements defined by Section 101. The Manual is not part of the Florida Building Code. Section 101 of the Manual provides: Retrofits Required. Pursuant to Section 553.844, Florida Statutes, strengthening of existing site-built, single family residential structures to resist hurricanes shall be provided. Site built single-family residential structures shall mean site built family detached residential structures. 101.1 When a roof on an existing site-built, single family residential structure is replaced, the following procedures shall be permitted to be performed by the roofing contractor: (emphasis supplied) Roof-decking attachment and fasteners shall be strengthened and corrected as required by section 201.1. A secondary water barrier shall be provided as required by section 201.2. Section 201.2 of the Manual provides the methods for installation of a secondary water barrier when an existing residence is subject to work that includes a “reroof.” The term “reroof” is not defined within the Manual. The authority for Florida Administrative Code Rule 9B- 3.0475 is Section 553.844, Florida Statutes. Section 553.844(3)(a) states: A roof replacement must incorporate the techniques specified in subparagraphs (2)(b) 2 and 4. (emphasis supplied) Subparagraph (2)(b)2 states: Secondary water barriers for roofs and standards relating to secondary water barrier. The criteria may include, but not limited to. . . . Chapter 2 of the Florida Building Code, defines reroofing, for purposes of the Florida Building Code, to include roof replacement and roof-overs. However, the Florida Building Code definition of reroofing is not determinative of the meaning of the term reroof in the Manual since the Manual is not part of the Florida Building Code. Testimony demonstrated that Leon County’s Building Inspector recognized the fact that the mitigation manual was not meant to apply to roof-overs because application of the requirement for a secondary water barrier requires removal of an existing roof covering and is inconsistent with the practice of roof-overs. Additionally, the Respondents do not intend the requirement for secondary water barriers to apply to roof-overs and have stipulated to that interpretation in this hearing. While the Manual could have been more precise in the use of the terms roof replacement and reroofing, it is clear that, when read as a whole, the Manual only addresses roof replacement and does not apply to roof-overs. Such a requirement is within the Respondents’ statutory authority.
The Issue The issues presented for decision herein are whether or not the Respondent diverted funds from a construction project involved herein; violated local building codes and thereby engaged in misconduct in the practice of electrical contracting all in violation of Sections 489.533(1)(m), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (1983).
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. During times material herein, Respondent is and continues to be a registered electrical contractor having been issued license number ER004865. On November 28, 1983, Clell Villella, manager of Coral Castle, Inc., a tourist attraction, and Respondent entered into a subcontractual agreement for the installation of parking lot and outdoor lighting electrical connections to existing electrical services at the Coral Castle. The contract price was $26,600 and the parties agreed that the work would be-completed by January 1, 1984, the beginning of Coral Castle's peak tourist season. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2 and testimony of Clell Villella). On December 8, 1983, Respondent was given an initial deposit of $6,600 to commence work. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3). After Respondent was given the initial deposit he failed to appear at the Coral Castle to commence work on the project for approximately 30 days despite Manager Villella's constant prodding through phone calls. Respondent commenced work on the project during early January, 1984 and worked evenings for a period of approximately ten to twelve days on the project. After Respondent had worked on the project for approximately twenty hours, he abandoned it by failing to appear at the site for more than 30 days. Respondent failed to return Manager Villella's phone calls. When it became apparent that Respondent would not be returning to the project, Manager Villella hired Tierney Electrical Contractors, Inc., (Tierney) to complete the electrical work on March 7, 1984. Tierney submitted a proposal to complete the work in question for the sum of $36,500. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). Tierney was requested to make some modifications to the work which Respondent had contracted to perform. Tierney estimates the added cost resulting from the modifications increased the value of his proposal by approximately $4,000. (Testimony of William Tierney). When Tierney commenced construction on the project, Manager Villella requested that he estimate the amount of the work that Respondent had completed. Tierney estimated that amount to be 13% of the project or approximately $2,226. Tierney's calculations were based on the fact that Respondent had installed approximately 643 feet of 3/4-inch rigid conduit. Based on the estimate of the work completed by Respondent, Coral Castle, by letter, requested Respondent to refund the $4,374 difference between the amount of the deposit initially tendered to him and the amount of work completed as estimated by Tierney Electrical Contractors. As of the date of the hearing, Respondent failed to respond to this demand or return any telephone calls from Manager Villella. At no time while Respondent performed the work in question for Coral Castle, Inc., had he (Respondent) applied for or obtained an electrical permit to perform the work in question. Respondent acknowledges that no permit was obtained for the work he performed at Coral Castle. However, he maintains that the common practice in the area is that permits are "pulled" after the work is completed or, in any event, prior to the first inspection; that it is permissible to commence construction except that a permit has to be obtained prior to the time when the job is either completed or the first inspection is due. However, a review of the pertinent sections of the South Florida Building Code, 1 1984 edition, reveals that it is necessary to first file an application for and obtain a permit prior to. commencement of construction. Chapter 3, Section 301, South Florida Building Code (1984 Edition).m
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Respondent's license as a Registered Electrical Contractor be suspended for a period of one (1) year. Further, it is recommended that the suspension be stayed for a period of 30 days during which time the Respondent will be allowed an opportunity to enter into a settlement agreement with Coral Castle, Inc., and provided that such an agreement is made, that the suspension revert into a term of probation for a like period i.e., (1 year). Finally, it is recommended that the Respondent pay the Petitioner an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000. Recommended this 4th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1986.
Findings Of Fact State outdoor advertising permits numbered 11332-10 and AC679-10 were issued to Harry Moody Outdoor Advertising in August of 1979. These permits authorized a sign on S.R. 40, 2.5 miles east of U.S. 441/27/301, in Marion County, Florida. A building permit was issued by the City of Ocala in August, 1979, and Moody erected an outdoor advertising sign in 1979 pursuant to these permits. On June 25, 1984, Moody removed this sign when the property owner was bulldozing the property in preparation for the construction of a restaurant on the site. Moody planned to reerect this sign after the restaurant had been constructed. On July 23, 1984, Ray Outdoor Advertising received a building permit from the City of Ocala to erect a sign at 2141 E. Silver Springs Boulevard in Ocala. This location is within 750 feet of the site where Moody held permits. When Ray applied to the Department for state permits for its location, the Department denied the application because Ray's proposed location was too close to the permitted location of Moody to comply with the spacing rule. Ray's proposed site was 276 feet west of the location where Moody held state permits. Moody has a lease for the location where the Department has issued his state permits. This lease has been maintained, and it is renewed from year to year until revoked. There is no evidence that the lease was ever cancelled. In October of 1984, when the property where Moody's sign had been located was cleared and the sign could be reerected, Moody applied to the City of Ocala for a building permit. On October 26, 1984, this permit was denied because a building permit had been issued to Ray, and the site where the Moody sign was to be reerected was too close to the location where Ray's building permit authorized it to build a sign. In summary, the Department will not issue Ray a state permit because of the proximity of the site where Moody holds state permits, and the City of Ocala will not issue Moody a building permit to reerect its sign because of the proximity of the site where Ray has a building permit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter its Final Order dismissing its notice of revocation of permits numbered 11332-10 and AC679-10 held by Harry Moody Outdoor Advertising; and denying the application of Ray Outdoor Advertising for a permit on U.S. 40, 1.9 mile east of U.S. 441/301, in Marion County, Florida. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 21st day of August, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Ray Green, Esquire 2600 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Timothy C. Laubach, Esquire 511 N. Ferncreek Avenue Orlando, Florida 32803 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 A. J. Spalla, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been certified by Petitioner as a building code administrator in the State of Florida. On April 5, 1993, Respondent began his employment with Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, as the permit control division chief in the County's Department of Building & Zoning, now known as the Department of Planning, Development and Regulation. Carlos Bonzon was the head of the County's Department of Building & Zoning and also served as the County's Building Official. The Port of Miami is another department within Metropolitan Dade County. At all times material hereto, Carmen Lunetta was the head of that department. The County desired to expand Terminals 8 and 9 at the Port of Miami to accommodate a Carnival Cruise Lines mega-cruise ship, anticipated to arrive in March 1996. The County was concerned that if it could not offer the taller terminal required for such a large ship, the ship would utilize Port Everglades instead of the Port of Miami. For purposes of construction, Terminals 8 and 9 were "threshold" buildings. A threshold building is one which is of such magnitude or complexity that the construction requires continuous inspections. Those continuous inspections are performed by the on-site "threshold inspector," the engineer of record, who keeps a log of the on-going inspections. The expertise required of a threshold inspector is beyond that of most County field inspectors. When a threshold inspector is involved, the County's inspectors check to make sure the log is being kept up-to-date and on-site. On January 27, 1995, a pre-submittal meeting was attended by representatives of Dade County, of the architect, and of the engineer. Respondent was one of the attendees. The meeting was chaired by Jose Cueto, the "special assistant" to Bonzon. Saul Suarez, the project architect, explained the project, and Cueto advised the attendees that the construction needed to begin even without the County's approval of building plans and the issuance of a permit and that County inspectors would perform "courtesy inspections" to make sure the work was being performed according to the architectural plans. Further, the inspectors were not to stop the construction work although there were no approved plans and no permit. While the South Florida Building Code does not provide for courtesy inspections, it was understood that the courtesy inspections referred to by Cueto were the same as "field visits." In a field visit a County inspector will travel to the job site, observe the construction, and meet with the contractor, engineer, or architect to discuss any concerns they may have. A field visit is not an official inspection required by the South Florida Building Code. Construction work began on Phase I, the foundation for Terminals 8 and 9. By letter dated February 10, 1995, Port Director Lunetta wrote to Building & Zoning Department Director Bonzon, confirming Lunetta's understanding that Bonzon's Department had issued a "conditional permit" for the project, allowing the construction to proceed during the review of construction documents "for the work being performed at this time." By letter dated June 29, 1995, Port Director Lunetta again wrote to Director Bonzon, confirming Lunetta's understanding that Bonzon's Department had issued a "conditional permit" for Phase II of the project, allowing construction to proceed during the review of construction documents "for the work being performed at this time." There is no such permit as a conditional permit under the South Florida Building Code. In July 1995 Cueto conducted a meeting regarding Phase II, the superstructure, which was attended by Respondent and other Building & Zoning Department representatives, the architect, and Port of Miami representatives. Cueto acquainted the attendees with Phase II of the construction and advised that the work would exceed the drawings and approved plans. Cueto outlined the procedures which were set up by Director Bonzon and specified that, in addition to the threshold engineer's inspection, County inspections were to be performed only by the Chief Inspector in each of the trades since the chief inspectors would have the most experience. Cueto also advised that he personally would be in charge of coordinating inspections and plans review as a result of the procedures established by Director Bonzon for the project. As the head of the Department of Building & Zoning and as the County's Building Official, Bonzon had the authority to re-assign duties for the Department's employees. Although Cueto was not certified to review plans and had had no authority over the County's plans review and inspection processes, Respondent and the others attending the January 1995 meeting and the July 1995 meeting understood that Bonzon had delegated to Cueto the responsibilities for ordering inspections and overseeing the processing of the building plans for the project. On July 7, 1995, a building permit was issued for the project. The permit was restricted to "foundation only." Throughout 1995 County inspectors visited the job site. They viewed the construction and verified that the threshold inspection log was on-site and up-to-date. The inspections were not recorded as official inspections because the County's computer would not accept inspection entries before a permit had been issued. The inspectors kept notes regarding their courtesy inspections or field visits. All mandatory inspections under the South Florida Building Code were conducted, both before and after the issuance in July 1995 of the building permit with the restriction limiting construction to foundation only. At the end of 1995 the County re-organized some of its departments, including the Building & Zoning Department. Director Bonzon and his special assistant Jose Cueto were transferred to the transportation department, and Bonzon was no longer the County's Building Official. On January 10, 1996, Respondent was certified by the Secretary of the Dade County Board of Rules and Appeals, subject to approval by the Certification Subcommittee at the January 30, 1996, meeting, to become the County's Building Official. As of that date, Respondent considered himself to have assumed the duties of that office. He did not also become the head of the Department; he remained in his position as Permit Control Division Chief. In either the first or second week of January, Respondent went to the offices of Bonzon and Cueto, who were in the process of moving to their new offices, to say good-by. In Cueto's office, Respondent saw a set of building plans lying on Cueto's window ledge. He asked if those were the plans for Terminals 8 and 9, and Cueto answered in the affirmative. Respondent took the plans and personally delivered them to the Chief Construction Plans Examiner, Frank Quintana. He directed Quintana to do whatever was necessary to expedite the County's review of those plans. Quintana divided the required two sets of plans so two reviewers could be processing them at the same time and personally took them from reviewer to reviewer in order to expedite them as quickly as possible. The expedited review process Respondent directed to occur resulted in the foundation- only restriction being removed from the permit on February 6, 1996. On that date, the construction at Terminals 8 and 9 was 85 to 95 percent complete. Prior to the removal of the foundation-only restriction from the permit on February 6, subcontracting permits for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work had not been, and could not have been, issued. Respondent immediately reported his discovery of the plans in Cueto's office and his decision to expedite their review to his superiors, Guillermo Olmedillo and Ray Villar. Respondent did not order the construction stopped. He knew that the threshold inspector had been performing on-going inspections, the architect had been regularly on-site, and that County inspectors had been visiting the job site on a regular basis. He also knew that all mandatory inspections had been conducted on schedule. He had no reason to believe that any of the construction was unsafe or that there was any danger to the public as a result of the construction having proceeded without proper permitting. He believed that the work itself was in compliance with the South Florida Building Code. On January 18, 1996, the project architect forwarded to Respondent a request that certain mandatory inspections be made. On January 20, Respondent ordered those inspections to be made. Those were the only inspections which Respondent ordered to be performed. In early March shop drawings were reviewed for a pre- fabricated stairwell. Although the stairs were safe for use by the construction workers, the County reviewer questioned the adequacy of the stairs for use by the public using the terminals. Based upon his concerns, repairs were made to the stairs to strengthen them, and they were subsequently approved as complying with all requirements to insure the public's safety. On March 8, 1996, a temporary certificate of occupancy was issued for Terminals 8 and 9. There was never any danger to the public as a result of the construction of Terminals 8 and 9.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 18th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane Snell Perera, Esquire Seymour Stern, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest Second Avenue, Suite N607 Miami, Florida 33128 Gary B. Goldman, Esquire Law Offices of Gary B. Goldman 20700 West Dixie Highway, Suite 100 North Miami Beach, Florida 33180 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ila Jones, Executive Director Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Department issued permit number AM146-10 to the Respondent, Melweb Signs, Inc., on May 2, 1984. This permit authorized the erection of an outdoor advertising sign on I-95 approximately 4,000 feet south of Orange Avenue in St. Lucie County. A sign was erected pursuant to this permit. The Respondent's application for the subject permit represented that the sign site applied for was in an area that was zoned commercial or industrial. The Respondent's manager had inquired of county representatives what the zoning was at the sign site, and was informed that the area was zoned commercial. The Respondent's manager also had a map that showed the area to be zoned commercial or industrial, but this map was not a zoning map. It had been issued by a local canal district. When the Respondent's application was filed, the Department's inspector had been shown the map the Respondent's manager had, and when the inspector inquired of the county what the zoning was, she was informed that the area was zoned commercial or industrial. In reliance on the Respondent's map and on the information received from the county, as well as on the Respondent's application, the permit was approved. The Respondent had certified on its application that the sign to be erected would meet all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Subsequently, the correct zoning for the subject site was brought to the attention of the Department's inspector. The Respondent agrees that the area is actually zoned agricultural (A-I) not commercial or industrial. Thus, the Department issued its notice of intent to revoke the Respondent's permit on April 11, 1985.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permit number AM146-10 held by the Respondent, Melweb Signs, Inc., be revoked, and that the sign erected by the Respondent on I-95 approximately 4,000 feet south of Orange Avenue in St. Lucie County, be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 10th day of December, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings 1985. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 10th day of December, APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-1746T Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Nevertheless, none of the Respondent's proposed findings address the provisions of Section 479.08, Florida Statutes, authorizing permit revocation when "the permittee has violated any of the provisions of this chapter." COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire P. O. Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent willfully violated local building codes and abandoned a job.
Findings Of Fact David Cobb is a registered general and registered roofing contractor with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The job in question was done in Gainesville, Florida. Gainesville has a local building code, having adopted the Southern Standard Building Code, but does not have a local competing board. Cobb entered into a contract with John Larramore for a room addition to Larramore's home. Larramore paid Cobb a total of $2,475.84 on the job which was priced as $4,080.24, an amount which included the price of floor covering which both parties acknowledged would be purchased by Larramore and deducted from the monies paid Cobb. Cobb began work on the project. Larramore was not happy with the craftsmanship on the job, which was overseen by Cobb's foreman. Eventually, Larramore contacted a friend who was a contractor. This friend indicated to Larramore that the job should be inspected by the building inspectors of Gainesville, and Larramore contacted the Building Department of Gainesville. Pending inspection by the Department, Larramore told Cobb to stop work until he was contacted again. The chief building official, Leslie Davis, inspected the Larramore job on May 4, 1979. He found several violations of the local building code. Davis was accompanied by the Board's investigator, Herman Cherry. Davis contacted Cobb and advised him to correct the code violations. Davis sent Cobb a letter on May 10, 1979, outlining the violations and giving Cobb 14 days to correct these violations. See Exhibit 5. Cobb tried to contact Larramore by telephone without success concerning correction and completion of the job. Eventually, Cobb wrote Larramore an undated letter, Exhibit 4, which was written after the inspection by Davis and Cherry on May 4, 1979. Larramore was uncertain of the date he received the letter but did acknowledge it was after the Davis/Cherry inspection. Larramore did not contact Cobb after he received Cobb's letter. Instead, he contracted with another contractor to complete the job. This contractor began work on May 17, 1979.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board take no action against David Cobb. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael E. Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Mr. David Cobb Post Office Box 1306 16146 James Couzens Freeway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Detroit, Michigan 48221
