Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations obtained herein, Respondent was a registered building contractor holding license number RV0010136 issued by the State of Florida. His address was Route 4, Box 48-M, Lake City, Florida. On April 4, 1982, Respondent entered into a contract with Michael D. Allen of Route I, Box 453, Live Oak, Florida, for the construction of a single- family residence on the Allen property for a contract price of $75,476. The contract was finished sometime in January 1983, and the Allens moved in that month. During some high winds shortly after they moved in, several shingles blew off the roof, exposing the underlying tar paper. The next day after the storm, Allen went out and saw approximately three or four shingles on the ground. When he picked them up and looked at them, he saw that they had no nail holes or staple holes in them. Allen immediately pulled his tractor up to the house and stood on the seat so he could take a close look at the roof. When he did so, he found that he could not see a nail, staple or hole in the roof where these particular shingles had come from. In addition to that area denuded of shingles by the storm, Allen also lifted up a few other shingles and found what to him was evidence of improper installation. As a result, Allen went to a building supply house in the area and bought a package of the same shingles previously installed on his house by the Respondent in order to get the nailing instructions that came with them. Allen bought the shingles from the same supply house where Respondent had purchased the ones installed on his property. After examining the instructions which came with the shingles he purchased, Allen then called the office of the building inspector and spoke with the Chief Building Inspector, Mr. Pat Sura, who came out to inspect the roof. Allen went up on the roof with Sura and lifted several shingles in different places to see how they were affixed. In most cases, he found two staples in each shingle, but in some cases he found none. Of the 20 or so tabs he lifted (each shingle having three tabs), he found that some, but not many, were nailed in three places. Sura confirms the fact that he was called by Allen. After the call, Sura checked his files and found that the permit for construction of the house was issued to Allen with Respondent listed as the contractor. When the complaint came in from Allen, Sura asked Mr. Cherry, a Department investigator, to go out and look at it with him, as is his standard practice. Sura does not recall exactly when this was done, but it was shortly after the call from Allen. Sura went up on the Allens roof with Cherry and pulled up a few tabs to look for the nailing pattern. He found that the nailing pattern was misaligned, that a stapling gun was used, and that both staples and nails were, in his opinion, too short. Based on this viewing, Sura called a Mr. Canepa, who was a representative of the shingle manufacturer at the time, and asked him to inspect the roof himself. Canepa also found both nails and staples and pulled at least one of each out of the roof. He did not take many, however, because most of the shingles had only one or two fasteners per shingle. The ones that were pulled, however, were pulled from shingles that had four nails or staples in them. Sura also went into the attic on the first visit with Cherry and examined the roof from the inside. He found very few staples or nails protruding through the inside of the subroof. Approximately 40 percent of the nails were not showing through. Based on his examination, Sura concluded that approximately 70 percent of the shingles were not properly fixed, having three or less fasteners per shingle. Only 30 percent had four. These figures were based on spot samples from different sections of the roof. In Sura's opinion, it appeared to him that the staple gun used to apply the staples was out of order. The top of the staple is supposed to be horizontal to and flush with the top surface of the top shingle. Many of the staples and nails which he observed were not horizontal. In some cases, the cross piece on top of the staple extended as much as an eighth of an inch above the tab and had not been hammered down. In Sura's opinion, at least 70 percent of the staples he examined were in that condition. Unless the staple is flush with the roof, the result is that the staple does not go in far enough and also makes a raised area on the shingle. According to the standards of the National Asbestos Roofing Manufacturer's Association (NARA), either nails or staples are supposed to be inserted below the glue tab on the shingle approximately five-eights inch above the top of the cut-out. A fastener is supposed to be above the top of the cutout and on each end. This would result in four fasteners per shingle. Sura found that in most cases the fasteners were on the glue tab or above it, very few were below it. An examination of 24 separate shingles revealed that those which had four fasteners were either crooked, raised or in the wrong place and, of these, 40 percent were in the wrong place. The building code of Suwannee County does not contain detailed specifications of how shingles are to be installed. The code refers to other specifications, such as the NARA standards, and incorporates them by reference. On one of the visits Sura made to the Allen home, the Respondent was also present with at least one of his sons. At Sura's request, Respondent or his son gave Sura some staples which he said are the type used on this job. However, Sura's examination revealed that these staples are not like the ones he took out of the roof. The staples used in the roof were three- quarter inch staples. Sura contends the ones given him by the Respondent were one-inch staples. At the hearing, Respondent and both his sons testified that they used three-quarter inch staples and did not give Sura one inch staples. The likelihood is that the proper sized staples were used. The roofing of the Allen house was accomplished by using a one-half inch plywood decking (actually 15/32 inch). A sheet of felt is laid over the decking and the shingles laid over the felt. In some cases, the fastener is driven through all of that plus an additional tab as well. As a result, the fact that no staple or other fastener was protruding through into the attic is not necessarily pertinent, and the use of a three-quarter inch staple could be acceptable if it was installed properly. As to the flush nature of the staple, a slight variance is accepted. It was recognized that it is impossible to get an exactly flush installation. The degree of acceptable variance is a subjective call, however. The staple that was removed by either Sura or Canepa (there is some uncertainty as to who pulled the staple but no uncertainty that one of the two actually accomplished that task) was protruding approximately one-eighth inch above the surface of the shingle. Gordon K. Perry, Respondent's son and employee, worked on the Allen house as the roofer. He, another brother, and a third employee worked as a team to install the roof, with his brother on the lower line, himself in the middle, and the other employee-on the upper line. As he and his associates laid the shingles, Perry, as the man in the middle, affixed them to the roof with a stapling gun. Perry indicates that he installed the shingles exactly as called for in the instructions contained on the wrapper around the shingles as they come from the manufacturer. Perry contends he used four staples to each shingle, and always does, but admits he might have missed one once in a while. Perry tried to affix the staples so they are flush with the shingles, but admits he might have missed one once in a while. If the gun misfires and leaves it protruding above the shingle, he and his team members all had hammers with which they would hammer the protruding staple down flush with the shingle. He contends he had no trouble installing this roof and that the gun he used was working properly. This testimony was confirmed by that of the other son, Frederick L. Perry, who also indicated that the crew followed the instructions on the wrapper for the installation of the shingles with one exception at the corner a staple was driven through two shingles instead of one. This procedure would however, in his opinion, at least meet the requirements and he feels even exceed them. He observed the way his brother was stapling the shingles on the Allen roof and could see nothing wrong with the procedure followed. His father, the Respondent, came to the job site frequently during the three days it took to install the Allen's roof and actually came up on the roof to observe but did not do any of the actual installation work. He explains the reason for the four or five loose shingles dislodged by the wind as being the result of the air hose for the staple gun getting caught under the tabs of these several shingles while the crew was working with the gun on the other side of the roof. When Mr. Perry observed what had happened he told the employee to go back to that area, put the tabs down and tack them down. Unfortunately, he did not check to see if that was done. He subsequently found out that the employee put the tabs back down but did not affix them as instructed. When he, on this later occasion, checked this area, he saw that where the shingles had broken loose, the nails were still in the roof and the felt was still there. Finding some broken shingle pieces on the lawn, he used them to make a temporary patch for the roof fully intending to report this situation to his father immediately. He did not have an opportunity to make the permanent repair did not feel he should do so without his father's instructions. Not withstanding his father's knowledge of the situation, he received no instructions from his father to make the repairs. The final and permanent repair was accomplished approximately a week prior to the hearing after the granting of the first continuance. On that occasion when he checked the other shingles, Perry found four staples in every shingle that he checked and they were, for the most part, properly flushed. Ron W. Williams, a building contractor registered in Lake City and coincidently a member of the Board of County Commissioners, also examined the Allen's roof on June 19, 1984. Independently he went up on the roof, pulled back tabs and looked at the shingles and their method of affixing in five different locations on the roof. He could see nothing wrong with how the shingles were installed and attempted to pull several staples using a pair of pliers and screwdriver. The difficulty he experienced in extracting the shingles is, in his opinion, an indication of how well they were installed. None that he saw were raised up. Some were at a permissible angle. Mr. Williams found anywhere from 7 to 8 staples in each shingle consisting of 3 or 4 staples across the top of each shingle plus fasteners from the higher shingle as well. In his opinion the roof looked good. The lines were straight, there was no waving. He could see no indication of any problem with the shingles or of weakness or that the shingles would be subject to wind removal. Another contractor who made his inspection at the same time was D. B. Espenship, a 35 year building contractor in Lake City, who has during his career constructed in excess of 500 homes. Mr. Espenship also independently went to 5 or 6 different areas on the Allen roof and pulled up the shingle tabs. He saw nothing to indicate any problems with the way the shingles were applied. The roof looked good, the lines were straight, staples flush and the angles not bad. David Morgan, a licensed roofing contractor in Lake City for more than 15 years does mostly residential roofing including shingles. On the same date as the others described, supra, he also went up on the roof .and watched Mr. Williams do his inspection. He also did his own inspection as well. When Mr. Morgan lifted the tabs he saw the staples and could see nothing to indicate that they were improperly installed. He could see no code violations nor could he see any potential problems. The roof was in excellent shape. In fact, "about as good as you could get." Mr. Perry, Respondent, first learned of the problems with the Allen roof when he was contracted by Mr. Cherry to go out and look at it. This was shortly after the storm which removed the shingles. Cherry asked Respondent to meet with Mr. Allen and Mr. Sura at the premises. When he arrived, no one showed up. However, at approximately a half hour later, Mr. Sura came up without Mr. Cherry. Mr. Sura would not go up on the roof. He said that at that time it was "out of his hands". The matter was in the hands of Mr. Allen and Mr. Cherry. In any case, Respondent went up on the roof as requested and lifted several shingles, but could find no problem. Thereafter, when Respondent called Mr. Cherry, Cherry said he would have to talk to Mr. Sura about it. Mr. Sura indicated he would ;nail respondent a copy of Mr. Canepa's report, but he never received it. In fact until he got the administrative complaint through the mail, he contends he could never get a straight complaint from anyone. He tried to get together with Mr. Allen on several occasions, but in his opinion, could not seem to satisfy him. Respondent also went up on the roof June 19 to make another inspection. At this late date, even in light of the administrative complaint he can still find nothing wrong with the roof. The lines are straight, the proper number of staples are installed and they are installed properly. The roof is in his opinion good and he, on the record, guaranteed to replace it if, with the exception of tornado damage, the roof blows off within the next 18-20 years. Mr. Perry has been a building contractor since 1966. He does all types of construction including the construction of between 300 and 400 homes over the years. Normally he does all the work within the firm. If they are very busy however, he subcontracts some. In this case, the Allen home was built "in-house" and he, himself, worked along with his workmen. He is, in addition to being a contractor, an ordained minister in the Baptist church in Lake City and has been so for the past 20 years. He does not know Mr. Canepa and knows of no reason Mr. Canepa would have to lie. The same is true of Mr. Sura. He feels that both individuals just did not examine the roof closely enough. He contends they are mistaken in their description of the roof's condition. Mr. Sura contends that the building code in this case was violated by respondent in the following particulars; violation of the provisions of the Southern Standard Building Codes: The use of 3 or less fasteners; Placing the nails or fasteners either on or above the glue tab, Failure to have the tops of the fasteners flush with the surface of the shingle; and Failure to have the top of the staple parallel to the shingle line. All these defects were brought to the attention of the Respondent in August, 1983. No corrective action was taken until one week prior to the hearing. On balance, considering the relative probabilities and improbabilities of the testimony of the witnesses and their interest in the outcome of the proceedings, or their lack thereof, it is found that Respondent, through his roofing crew, improperly installed a large number of shingles on the Allen roof.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore. RECOMMENDED That Respondent, Fred Perry, be reprimanded and pay an administrative fine of $1,000.90 which fine shall be remitted up a positive showing by affidavit of the owner or County Building Inspector that the roof defects have been corrected. DONE and RECOMMENDED THIS 10th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-0062 Terry McDavid Post Office Box 1328 Lake City, Florida 32056 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a registered roofing contractor in Miami, Florida, having been issued license no. RC 0047352. Respondent is the qualifying agent for All Central Roofing, Inc. In May 1986 All Central Roofing, Inc., entered into a contract with Richard Crisonino to perform certain roofing work on Crisonino's residence in Miami, Florida. The contract price was $3,374. All Central Roofing, Inc., thereafter began the roofing work on Crisonino's residence without obtaining a permit for that work from the local building department and without posting a permit on the job site. All Central Roofing, Inc., failed to obtain the required inspections by the local building department. After completing part of the work involved and after receiving substantial payment under the contract, All Central Roofing Company, Inc., ceased work on the Crisonino residence and failed or refused to complete the work, thereby abandoning the job. By her own admissions at the final hearing in this cause, Respondent does not possess a working knowledge of roofing or roofing contracting. She lacks even a basic fundamental understanding of roofing construction to the extent that it is impossible that she is fulfilling any of her responsibilities as a qualifying agent for All Central Roofing, Inc. Further, Respondent does not even know the number of employees working for All Central Roofing, Inc. Respondent has been disciplined by the Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board, and Respondent's personal and business certificates have been revoked by that Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and revoking Respondent's registered roofing contractor license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 G. Vincent Soto, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harry E. Geissinger, Esquire 415 West 51st Place, Suite 201 Hialeah, Florida 33012 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a registered roofing contractor at all times material hereto. His license number is RC-0035594. On or about April 26, 1985 Respondent, doing business as Pinellas Roofing Service, contracted with Bausch and Lomb to reroof their plant in Manatee County, at a contract price of $31,150. Respondent admits that at no time material hereto was he licensed to engage in contracting in Manatee County. Pinellas Roofing thereafter began, and partially performed, this job for which it was paid a total of $28,035. Petitioner alleges, and Respondent denies, that Respondent diverted funds received from this job for other purposes, and was thereafter unable to fulfill the terms of the contract with Bausch and Lomb. Petitioner did not present competent substantial evidence in support of this charge. Respondent never completed this job and took no steps to inform Bausch and Lomb that he would not complete the contract or make other arrangements for its completion. He left several thousand dollars worth of material on the roof, exposed, when he walked off this job, and this resulted in these materials being substantially destroyed. During the job, he did not take precautions to assure that the roof did not leak during heavy rainstorms. In fact, on at least three occasions, leaks caused damage to the interior of the plant and Respondent could not be reached. Therefore, Bausch and Lomb had to have another roofing contractor make emergency repairs on June 25, July 15 and September 3, 1985, at a total additional cost of $4,150. Since Respondent did not complete the contract, and left the roof unfinished, Bausch and Lomb contracted on September 17, 1985 with Bernard J. Lozon, Inc., to complete the job, and make certain additional repairs, at a cost of $24,000. In the opinion of Bernard J. Lozon, who was accepted as an expert in roofing contracting, the actual work that was done by Pinellas Roofing was satisfactory. However, Respondent's actions in walking off the job and leaving the roof unattended without completing the job is an unacceptable practice in roofing contracting, and constitutes incompetence and misconduct. Respondent failed to properly supervise this job. He relied upon his son to hire the necessary crews, pay them, handle financial aspects of the job, and assure its completion. His testimony indicates he fails to understand his own responsibility for supervising and completing the work for which he contracted, and which was performed under his license. At no time material hereto did Respondent qualify Pinellas Roofing Service with Petitioner. Respondent failed to apply for and obtain a Manatee County building permit for the roofing job in question, and also failed to request the county building department to perform inspections of the work performed. The Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County has adopted and follows the 1979 edition of the Standard for Installation of Roof Coverings, Southern Building Code, as amended in 1981. This Code requires all contractors performing work in Manatee County to be registered in Manatee County, and to obtain permits for all roof replacements and repairs in excess of $200, as well as obtain inspections of all such work to insure compliance with the Code. Respondent failed to comply with these requirements of the local building code. When Respondent submitted his proposal on April 16, 1985 for the Bausch and Lomb job, he specifically acknowledged, in writing, that "all work (is) to be done according to owner specifications sheet." (Emphasis supplied). At hearing, Respondent contended that when he submitted his proposal he never saw the project specification sheet which was thereafter attached to his contract with Bausch and Lomb and made a part thereof. Rather, he testified that his proposal referred to certain specifications that appeared on project drawings which he reviewed prior to submitting his proposal. After considering the demeanor of the witnesses and all of the evidence presented, and particularly the fact that Respondent referred to the "specifications sheet" and not "drawings" in his proposal, it is specifically found that Respondent had knowledge of, and did in fact submit his proposal based upon the "specifications sheet" which ultimately became a part of his contract. As such, he was bound thereby in the performance of work under this contract. In pertinent part, the "specifications sheet" requires that the contractor obtain all necessary permits from Manatee County, that notice be given to the owner in advance of work that will produce excessive amounts of dust or tar fumes so proper precautions could be taken, that roofing materials be stored in a manner that protects them from damage or adverse weather conditions during construction, and that the contractor provide a two year written guarantee at the conclusion of the job. Respondent failed to comply with these requirements of the specifications.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's registration for a period of ninety (90) days and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3698 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 3,4 Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 5,6 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 7,8 Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 3, 5. Rejected as not based upon competent substantial evidence. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 2, 3. 5-7 Addressed in Findings of Fact 2, 3 and 5. 8,9 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 10. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 5. 11,12 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as not based upon competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750 Michael Schlesinger, Esquire 655 Ulmerton Road Building 11-A Large, Fl 33541 Fred Seely Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Fl 32201 Van Poole Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant thereto, Respondent, Ronald E. Lotz, held registered roofing contractor license number RC0031773 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. He has been a licensed roofing contractor since February, 1978. His present address is 1650 Palm Avenue, Winter Park, Florida. In April, 1979 Lotz and Allen Hartwell entered into a contract whereby Lotz agreed to install a "new truss, and shingle roof" on Hartwell's house located at 4005 Northwest 19th Avenue, Ocala, Florida. The agreed upon price for the job was $1,225. As is relevant here, Lotz agreed, inter alia, that a "(n)ew exterior siding (would) be used on all gables". According to their agreement, Lotz was to purchase the plywood necessary to complete the work while Hartwell agreed to buy all their necessary materials. Section 6 of Marion County Ordinance 78-5, adopted on January 24, requires that a roofing permit be obtained on all jobs where the value of the work exceeds $100.00. Lotz did not obtain such a permit even though he conceded at the hearing that such a permit was required. Although the contract called for a new exterior side on all gables, Lotz did not install the same. Instead, he installed tongue and groove 3/4 inch boards which he felt were an adequate substitute. He discussed this with Hartwell at the time the job was performed and Hartwell did net object to this change in the contract. Hartwell, who filed a complaint against Lotz, was primarily dissatisfied with a wavy roof. However, that aspect of the job is not a part of this proceeding. The contract itself was modified by the parties a number of times. As a result, Lotz omitted certain requirements therein but added others without additional charge. In all, he was paid $1,125 for the project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is, RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of failing to obtain a roofing permit in violation of Subsection 489.129(I)(d) Florida Statutes, and that he be given a public reprimand and fined $250. It is further RECOMMENDED that all other charges against respondent be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 27th day of September, 1983 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles P. Tunnicliff, Esquire Deaptment of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Ron Lotz 1650 Palm Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor should be disciplined for the reasons set forth in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Raymond D. Simmons, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor having been issued license number RC 0055320 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). He has been licensed as a roofing contractor since November 1987. The Board's official records reflect that on July 1, 1991, the license was placed on the delinquent status for non-renewal and is now considered "invalid." 1/ When the events herein occurred, respondent was the qualifying agent for Simmons and Sons Plumbing and Roofing, Route 1, Box 191 (County Road 225), Waldo, Florida. Except for this action, there is no evidence that respondent has ever been disciplined by the Board. On May 3, 1988, respondent submitted a proposal to Charles and Thea Ansman to repair the roof on their home located at 5132 N. W. 29th Street, Gainesville, Florida. With minor modifications, the proposal was accepted by the Ansmans on May 10, 1988. According to the agreement, respondent was to perform the following services: Tear off old shingles dry-in with 15 lb. felt and replace with Corning Owens 20 year fungus resistant shingles. Replace all plumbing stacks and ease drips. Will replace back porch with 3-ply build-up roof will coat it with roof coating 10 year warranty on workmanship 20 year manufactor [sic] on shingles and build-up roof. Will replace all wood that needs to be replaced. Although the agreement does not specifically refer to ridge vents, the parties also agreed that respondent would install a ridge vent on the home. On May 16, 1988, respondent made application for a building permit from the City of Gainesville to "reroof" the Ansman's home. The permit was issued on May 20, 1988, in the name of Simmons & Sons Plumbing and Roofing. Respondent commenced work on the project on May 16 and continued the work over a period of several days. During this period of time, respondent was frequently on the job site overseeing the work. Indeed, Thea Ansman said respondent was at her home approximately half of the time while the repairs were being made. Thus, while respondent undoubtedly supervised the job, for the reasons stated in findings of fact 6 and 7, he nonetheless failed to "properly" supervise the work. On May 20, 1988, Thea Ansman paid respondent in full for the work. Although the job was not finished, respondent told Mrs. Ansman he would return the next day to complete the work. When respondent failed to return, the Ansmans repeatedly telephoned him during the next few months, but respondent either refused to speak with the Ansmans or told them he would return within a few days. However, the work was never finished and respondent never returned to the job site. While inspecting the roof one day, Charles Ansman noted that the roof trusses, an intregal part of the load bearing capacity of the structure, were cut at their peaks. The depth of the cuts was between one and two inches and was apparently the result of a saw-blade not set at the proper height when the ridge vent was installed. Sometime in July or August 1988 Charles Ansman discussed the damage with respondent and requested that respondent repair the same. Respondent refused to do so on the ground he was not responsible for the damage. Ansman then filed a complaint with the City of Gainesville Building Department. On September 9, 1988, a city building inspector inspected the home and confirmed that virtually every truss was cut and that the integrity of the roof was in jeopardy. He also observed that the soffits were improperly installed in some cases, and in others, were missing altogether. A notice of violation was then issued by the city on October 3, 1988, charging respondent with violating the Standard Building Code in two respects. More specifically, it was charged that respondent's workmanship violated sections 1701.1.1 and 1708.2.1 of the 1985 Standard Building Code, as amended through 1987. These sections pertain to the quality and design of wood trusses and the design of trussed rafters, respectively. At a hearing before the city's Trade Qualifying Board, respondent admitted his workers had violated the cited sections and caused the damage to the trusses. However, respondent denied liability on the theory that the workers, and not he personally, had negligently damaged the house. Respondent was thereafter issued a letter of reprimand for his actions. In order to recover their damages, which included the replacement of all damaged trusses, the Ansmans filed suit against respondent in Alachua County small claims court. On April 18, 1989, they received a judgment in the amount of $1,050. The judgment was eventually satisfied but only after the Ansmans threatened to levy on respondent's real property located in Alachua County. In preparation for the suit, the Ansmans obtained an engineering report which corroborates the findings made by the city building inspector concerning the damage and negligence on the part of respondent's work crew. By allowing the work to be performed in that manner, respondent was incompetent and committed misconduct in his practice of contracting. However, there is no evidence that respondent was grossly negligent during his supervision of the job. Respondent did not appear at hearing. However, prior to hearing he spoke to the city building inspector and acknowledged that the roof trusses were damaged as the result of negligence on the part of his crew. He also admitted this during the final hearing on the small claims action. At the same time, he denied that his workers had ever touched the soffits. This assertion, however, is rejected as not being credible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law, it is, recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1987), and that he pay a $1000 fine and his license be suspended for one year. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Harry Clinton Brackin, is a licensed registered roofing contractor holding license number RC0045880. Respondent was licensed at all times material to this action. Respondent is the owner and licensee for Brackin Roofing Company. Sometime around February 20, 1987, Respondent entered into a contract with Mrs. Arebelle S. Hughes, an elderly woman, to re-roof her house and remodel the front porch of her home located in Vernon, Florida. In addition to the work performed pursuant to the contract, there were verbal construction agreements between Mrs. Hughes and Respondent for the remodeling of the back porch, removing and closing out windows, replacing and framing doors, placing molding in the kitchen and various other carpentry repairs. Ms. Hughes asked Respondent to perform the additional work because she was well satisfied with the roofing job done by Respondent and she was unable to find a licensed contractor willing to come to Vernon and perform the work she wanted done. Respondent, in fact, informed Ms. Hughes he was not a contractor and in his opinion she needed a contractor. However, Ms. Hughes still wanted Respondent to do the additional work for the above reasons. Later, Mrs. Hughes became very dissatisfied with the quality of Respondent's remodeling work and advised the Respondent of her complaints. However, the evidence disclosed that her complaints were not well communicated and Respondent did generally try to meet Ms. Hughes' requests. None of Respondent's work constituted a hazardous condition and no evidence was offered which indicated an actual building code violation. The Respondent has not corrected the work. Mr. Harold Benjamin, an expert in the area of general contracting, reviewed the contract, the job site, the Respondent's license, and the pertinent Florida Statutes. Mr. Benjamin's expert opinion was that the Respondent's contracting job with Mrs. Hughes definitely exceeded the scope of Respondent's roofing license. Mr. Benjamin added that the carpentry work itself demonstrated an unfitness in the area of carpentry contracting and that Respondent's work did not in some respects meet the minimum carpentry standards for the industry. However, Respondent's work was not so bad as to constitute gross negligence in the area of contracting. This is particularly true since Respondent disclosed to Ms. Hughes that he was not a contractor and that the work she wanted done should be performed by one. Respondent's duty was thereby limited to a duty to perform reasonably given his abilities. Respondent did meet that duty. Respondent was disciplined for the same type of violation in 1986.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board impose an administrative fine of $2,500.00. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2721 The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 2 and of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 8 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted except as to the finding pertaining to gross negligence which is rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harry Clinton Brackin Route 1, Box 2470 Chipley, Florida 32428 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Findings Of Fact The Respondent's name is Troy Griffin. The Respondent is now and was at all times relevant to the pending Administrative Complaint, a registered residential contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license number RR 0030688. The Respondent is not now and at no time material to the pending Administrative Complaint was the Respondent a certified or registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida. At all times material to the pending Administrative Complaint, the Respondent's license #RR 0030688 qualified Griffin Remodeling & Repairs, Jacksonville, Florida. In June 1978 the Respondent d/b/a Griffin Remodeling and Repairs contracted to repair the residence of June Moody, Jacksonville, Florida. The contracting work included work upon the Moody's built-up roof, which Respondent re-roofed pursuant to contract. Respondent built up the roof with more than one layer of felt in 1978. These layers were discovered by the city's inspector in 1982. Respondent returned in 1978 and patched the roof he installed. These patches were seen by the city's inspector in 1982. The owner, Moody, did not complain of leaks in 1982. There was no evidence of leaks in 1982. A roof poorly installed without sufficient tar and felt will leak within the time that has passed between 1978 and 1982. See inspector's testimony in response to Hearing Officer's question. Moody's home was a single family, one story residence. No evidence was received regarding whether the City of Jacksonville requires examinations of roofing contractors prior to their certification.
Recommendation Having found that the Respondent did not commit the alleged violations, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed and no action be taken. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Buildina 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Troy Griffin 7443 Laura Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Direetor Department of Professional -I Regulation. Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a Certified Building Contractor or Residential Contractor.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 44-year-old male. He was born and raised in Tallahassee, Florida. He is a high school graduate. Petitioner passed the examination for licensure as a certified building contractor. This is a comprehensive examination that is designed to test knowledge in all aspects of the construction industry. Passing it is a mandatory prerequisite before an application can be considered by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (FCILB). However, passing the examination does not eliminate or modify the statutory or rule experience requirements. Petitioner submitted his application for a certified building contractor license on or about March 24, 2008. By letter of May 2, 2008, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation requested additional information. Petitioner then provided a revised affidavit from Chad Banks, a certified building contractor, and a letter from the Maintenance Construction Chief of the City of Tallahassee’s Gas Utility Department, each containing more detailed information about Petitioner’s experience. These items were received by Respondent on May 23, 2008. It is not clear whether Petitioner requested and was granted a continuance of his appearance with regard to the instant license application at an earlier FCILB meeting, but on January 15, 2009, the full Board considered Petitioner’s application at a duly-noticed public meeting in Altamonte Springs, Florida. At that time, Petitioner was present. During his appearance before the full Board on January 15, 2009, Petitioner was very nervous, but he believes that one of the Board members offered him, or at least asked him if he would accept, a residential contractor’s license in place of a certified building contractor’s license, and that he answered that he would accept such a license, only to have that “offer and acceptance” voted down by the full Board. However, Petitioner does not rule out the possibility that the vote taken at the meeting was actually with regard to denying the certified building contractor license for which he had applied. There is no evidence that Petitioner has ever submitted an application for a residential contractor’s license. By a Notice of Intent to Deny, dated March 16, 2009, and mailed March 24, 2009, the FCILB formally denied Petitioner’s application for a certified building contractor License stating: The applicant failed to demonstrate the required experience, pursuant to Section 489.111, Florida Statutes and Rule 61G4- 15.001, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner seeks licensure as one who has four years of active experience and who has learned the trade by serving an apprenticeship as a skilled worker or as a foreman, at least one year of which experience is as a foreman. Petitioner has never worked as a full-time employee of a commercial or residential contractor. Petitioner got early experience in construction working around eight rental properties owned by his father. He performed light carpentry, deck construction, general handyman repairs, and some plumbing and roofing when he was approximately 16 to 21 years of age. However, Petitioner essentially relies on a work history that includes working as a plumber for Jim Bennett Plumbing from 1987 to 1993; as a foreman for the City of Tallahassee Gas Department from 1995 to 2005; as a “contractor trainee” for Chad Banks from 1999 to 2002; as having volunteered as superintendent for Gulf Coast Painting from 2003 to 2007; and as a maintenance man for the City of Tallahassee Parks Department from 2006 to 2007. Petitioner’s dates of employment overlap, because his volunteer experience was acquired mostly on weekends, holidays, in hours after he had already completed a full work day for the City of Tallahassee, or on “time off” from his regular employments with the City. Petitioner is a hard worker and wanted to learn the construction trade, but his volunteer construction jobs were intermittent, and he provided no clear assessment of the number of hours per week or month that he put in for any of them. From 1987 to 1993, Petitioner worked for Jim Bennett Plumbing. He started as a plumber’s helper and progressed to greater responsibility. In that position, he acquired a wide range of experience in plumbing for some residential, but mostly commercial, buildings. During this period, he also did some light cosmetic carpentry and tile work to restore building parts damaged by the installation of plumbing apparatus. Much of Petitioner’s construction experience relates to his association with Chad Banks, who testified that at all times material, Petitioner had “hands on” experience, working for him and that Petitioner was a competent worker. Petitioner has never been a “W-2 employee” of Mr. Banks, but there is no specific statutory or rule requirement that the experience necessary to qualify for the certified building contractor or the residential contractor license must be as a “W-2 employee.” Cf. Conclusions of Law. Mr. Banks was not licensed as a certified building contractor until 1999. Petitioner did some work for Mr. Banks when Mr. Banks was working as a sub-contractor on commercial projects (specifically one or more Super-Lube buildings) prior to Mr. Banks obtaining his certified building contractor’s license in 1999. Most of this employment involved pouring concrete slabs. Petitioner claims experience in “elevated slabs,” limited to the construction of a single Super-Lube building, which Petitioner described as laying a slab below ground level for mechanics to stand on and an at-ground level slab for cars to drive onto the lift for an oil change. He described no truly “elevated” slabs or floors above ground level on this project, and Petitioner’s and Mr. Banks’ testimony was vague as to Petitioner’s responsibilities on this project and as to the project’s duration. The general contractor on this project for whom Mr. Banks “subbed” did not testify. From this, and other employments, Petitioner has experience pouring foundation slabs, but he has never worked on a foundation slab in excess of 20,000 square feet. Petitioner also assisted in Mr. Banks’ construction of some rental sheds, but it is unclear if this was before or after Mr. Banks was licensed. Petitioner worked for Mr. Banks d/b/a C. B. Construction, Inc., in a volunteer capacity on exclusively residential construction from 1999 to 2002, and again from February 2004 to March 2008. During these periods, Petitioner and Mr. Banks considered Petitioner a “contractor trainee,” but Petitioner’s work for Mr. Banks was neither exclusive nor continuous; both men described it as “volunteer” work; and some of it seems to have amounted to Petitioner's looking over work done personally by Mr. Banks and having Mr. Banks explain to him, via a plan sheet, what Mr. Banks had already done personally. There is no evidence that during this time frame Petitioner worked for Mr. Banks as a foreman. Petitioner has the ability to “read” many types of construction “plans.” Petitioner has experience with slab footers, but he has not constructed red iron structural steel qualified for framing a building. Petitioner has experience in decorative masonry walls, but he has not constructed structural masonry walls of a type that would support framing members of a building or other vertical construction. Petitioner also worked for the City of Tallahassee as a “W-2” employee, mostly as a foreman overseeing a crew of four workers, from 1995 to 2005. In that capacity, he worked on a church, but the church itself had been constructed several years previously, and Petitioner’s crew’s contribution was tying-in several gas lines during a roadway development project and keeping all the utilities up and running during the project, while a private contractor worked on the church. With regard to the foregoing project and many others for the City Utilities Department, Petitioner directed a crew that built sidewalks and gutters or that tied these features into existing roadways and driveways. In that capacity, he often coordinated activities with residential contractors. Over his ten years’ employment with the City Utilities, Petitioner also directed a crew that exclusively created underground vaults for the housing and shelter of utility apparatus. However, none of his endeavors for the City Utilities involved vertical structural construction for floors above ground. Petitioner has also built new gas stations for the City’s natural gas vehicles, and has erected pre-fab utility buildings, including much slab work, but the nature and duration of these endeavors is not sufficiently clear to categorize them as qualifying him for the certified building contractor license. Most of Petitioner’s experience with the City, as substantiated by the letter of the City Utilities Maintenance Construction Chief, Mr. Lavine, has been in the construction of driveways, roads, gutters, storm drains, sidewalks, culverts, underground utility structures, plumbing and gas lines. While it is accepted that Petitioner has worked on such projects, this type of work more properly falls in the categories of “plumbing contractor” or “underground utility contractor” and Mr. Lavine was not demonstrated to have any certification/licensure in a category appropriate to Petitioner’s application. (See Conclusions of Law.) Sometime after 2005, for approximately a year, Petitioner was employed by the City of Tallahassee Parks and Recreation Department and in that capacity participated in at least one construction of a dugout and a concession stand at one of its playgrounds. He also did repairs on several dugouts and concession stands, but this latter work would not be classified as “structural” construction. Petitioner’s experience in precast concrete structures is limited to his work with gas utility structures, but does not include work on precast tilt walls, which are the type of walls that are constructed off-site, delivered to the job site, placed on the slab foundation, and raised in place as part of an on- going commercial building project. Petitioner has no experience in column erection. “Columns” in this context within the construction trade refers to supports for upper level structural members, which would entail vertical construction. Petitioner’s experience in concrete formwork does not include experience in the structurally reinforced concrete formwork that would be used in vertical buildings, such as all floors above ground level. FCILB’s Chairman testified that the Board interprets the type of experience necessary to comply with the statutes and rules, more particularly Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4- 15.001(2), to be “structural experience.” There is no affirmative evidence that Petitioner has ever notified the Clerk of the Agency that he was relying on a right to a default license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order denying Petitioner’s application for licensure as a Certified Building Contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 24th day of November, 2009.
