The Issue Whether or not the Respondent's activity and conduct in the performance and completion of several construction projects constitute unreasonable or dilatory practices and also whether Respondent's workmanship on such projects was of such an inferior quality that it would indicate proof and continued evidence of gross negligence or misconduct by Respondent in the practice of contracting within the meaning of Chapter 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1979). 2/ Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel, the memoranda submitted, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following:
Findings Of Fact By its Administrative Complaint signed April 27, 1981, Petitioner, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, seeks to revoke Respondent's license to practice the profession of contracting and to impose a civil penalty based on conduct set forth hereinafter. Respondent, Charles H. Bromley, is a certified pool contractor holding License No. CP-007871 (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1). During times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint herein, Respondent was a qualifying agent, pursuant to Section 489.119, Florida Statutes, for both Wands Construction Company, Inc., and for Magic Wands Pools, Inc. Respondent's testimony established that he was part owner of Wands Construction Company, Inc., was an officer of that company and deemed himself responsible for its activities. Respondent testified that he owned no stock in the predecessor company, Magic Wands Pools, Inc., nor was he an officer of that corporation and was not directly responsible for contracts undertaken by that company. Respondent's position is that at least two of these construction projects (Derfler and Dubovick) were projects undertaken by Magic Wands Pools, Inc., and completed by Respondent, doing business as, Wands Construction Company, Inc., inasmuch as Magic Wands Pools closed its doors in late 1979. Wands Construction Company, Inc., entered into a contract with Mariner Village, Inc., to construct a pool at a condominium site being developed by that corporation. The contract was dated September 6, 1979, and called for completion of the pool within six weeks from the date of issuance of a permit. The permit for pool construction was issued on November 6, 1979. Respondent was unable to complete construction of the pool at Mariner Village, inasmuch as problems developed after the pool was filled which caused the pool walls and decking to crack and leak. Respondent attempted to correct the deficiencies in the pool until approximately August of 1980, at which time he was ordered off the job by Mariner Village, Inc. Robert Hamilton, the developer and president of Mariner Village, was the person with whom Respondent negotiated the contract to build the pool for Mariner Village. During the course of time in which Respondent was attempting to correct the problems at Mariner Village, its president, Robert Hamilton, sent approximately six mailgrams to Petitioner reciting his contention that Mariner Village considered Respondent's actions to be a breach of its contract; that the pool was not completed in a professional-like manner and that Respondent's overall performance, or lack thereof, constituted negligence. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 3 and 4.) When Respondent completed the construction phase of the pool, neither the city nor the county would issue a certificate of occupancy to allow the residents of Mariner Village to use the pool. While it was noted that the county initially issued Respondent a certificate of occupancy for its construction of this pool site, that certificate was immediately revoked due to surface cracks in the pool on the north, east and west ends of the pool once it was filled to capacity. Robert Hamilton, president of Mariner Village, testified that at this time (during the hearing) he thought that the issuance of a certificate of occupancy was imminent and that while the price called for in the contract between Respondent and Mariner Village was $20,450.00, it (Mariner Village) had expended or was obligated to expend sums totaling $70,000.00 to complete the pool. Mr. Hamilton ordered two engineering studies to examine and report on performance in the Respondent's construction of the pool. According to Hamilton, the reports revealed that the pool was erected on "good" pilings. Respondent and Leslie Derfler entered into a contract on June 9, 1978, to construct a pool at his residence. The contract price was paid in full and the pool was completed, however, during the spring of 1979, Mr. Derfler detected an opening around the tile grout near the leaf-skimmer. The matter was immediately called to Respondent's attention. Failing to get a prompt response to his complaint, Mr. Derfler contacted the Better Business Bureau after which Mr. Derfler was able to communicate with Respondent during March of 1980. Respondent dispatched a repairman to regrout the tiles in the area around the leaf-skimmer, however, the repairman failed to regrout the tiles which he replaced. As a result, the door of the skimmer became inoperative and separated from the skimmer. Repeated attempts by Mr. Derfler to contact Respondent were unavailing and Mr. Derfler called another company (Boca Pool-Trol Laboratories, Inc.) to finish the necessary work. In this regard, evidence reveals that Respondent reimbursed Mr. Derfler for the monies paid to the Boca Pool-Trol Laboratories, Inc. Respondent and Lindberg Development Company, through its assistant project manager, Taisto Pistkan, entered a contract on January 31, 1980, for the installation of a commercial swimming pool at Shore Heights Condominiums in Lantana, South Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent commenced construction on the pool during August, 1980, and the pool was not completed, such that it could be used, until June, 1981. Mr. Pistkan had to make repeated requests of Respondent to correct numerous problems, including leaks, falling plaster and tiles. When Respondent initially completed construction of the pool and it was filled, during September, 1980, leaks surfaced and approximately nine months later (June, 1981) Respondent completed construction of the pool and a certificate of occupancy was issued. In this regard, Respondent admitted during the hearing that it took an inordinate amount of time to make the necessary repairs to get the Lindberg pool certified. On August 10, 1979, Mr. and Mrs. Melvin Dubovick entered into a contract with Magic Wands Pools to construct a pool at their residence in Delray Beach, Florida. This contract called for the completion of the pool within six weeks from the date that the permit was issued. In October of 1979, an agent of Wands Construction, which agent had previously been an agent of Magic Wands Pools, informed Mr. Dubovick that he would have to enter into a new contract due to a reorganization of the pool company. As a result of that advice, the Dubovicks and Respondent entered into another contract with Wands Construction Company, Inc., on October 25, 1979. (Petitioner's Exhibits 10 and 11.) According to Mr. Dubovick, the second contract was signed to "straighten out the paper work." Mr. Dubovick was advised that all of the material terms of the new contract would remain unchanged and that the work would be completed within approximately eight weeks. However, the contract with Wands Construction Company does not contain a completion date. Excavation for the pool was made during the middle of October, 1979. Thereafter, no further work was done during that year and the wooden deck of the Dubovicks' home, which was adjacent to the hole dug for the pool, collapsed on New Years Eve, 1979. Thereafter, there were a number of problems with the construction of the pool, including the fact that a spa was not built as called for in the plans for the pool which necessitated that the Respondent remove a portion of poured gunite around the pool's deck; the filter was improperly installed and leaks surfaced when the pool was filled, causing Respondent to place numerous patches and filter outlets in the pool. Additionally, the slope of the pool decking was improper and caused a flooding condition around the Dubovicks' patio. The dimensions of the pool were not completed according to plans in that the length of the pool as completed is 30 feet, 3 inches, whereas the plans called for the pool to be 34 feet in length. The contract provides that the pool would have a 15,000 gallon capacity whereas Mr. Dubovick contends that he has never been able to measure more than a 10,000 gallon capacity while he filled the pool. The pool was completed in July of 1980. Kim Parker, a certified pool contractor, testified on behalf of Petitioner concerning two of the projects complained of in the Administrative Complaint. Consultant Parker is a licensed pool contractor and has been certified approximately two years. He is presently the general manager for Almar Pools. Mr. Parker has supervised pool construction in excess of two years. Mr. Parker visited the Mariner Village project on August 28, 1981, and noted hairline cracks in the plaster around the pool. Those cracks indicated to him that the plaster was either improperly applied or cured. He also noted a return fitting protruding into the pool, which he considered to he evidence of "shoddy" workmanship. Mr. Parker also noticed that the pumps in the pump room were not installed in a "professional" manner. During this time period, Mr. Parker also visited the Dubovicks' residence and he noted that an air leak existed at the filter pump, which caused a loud noise and that the pool was situated approximately three inches above the patio which created a drainage problem. In this regard, the Dubovicks testified that two doors were ruined due to water drainage problems around the pool area. Mr. Parker considered the workmanship around the Dubovick pool to be professional in its appearance although he did note that the pool was not constructed to the measurements provided for in the contract. Respondent's Defense Respondent, Charles Bromley, qualified Magic Wands Pools during 1978. He did so, according to him, based on "bad legal advice." Respondent encountered numerous problems completing pools that were under construction for Magic Wands Pools while he also was handling the day-to-day affairs of the successor corporation. Respondent has completed all except two out of forty-two pools that remained incomplete when he took over and Magic Wands Pools ceased operations in late 1979. Respondent contends that the former owner dumped "problem" pools on him which included the Mariner Village pool. William Sheldon, a professional engineer who has acted as a consultant in the design of numerous pools (in excess of 1,000) was called as a witness to testify on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Sheldon visited the Mariner Village pool and studied the design. He concluded that inadequate pilings were the source of the problems with the Mariner Village pool. That is, he considered the pilings failed to give adequate support and that this was of no fault or could not result in any liability on Respondent's part, inasmuch as the pool contractor was not responsible for the pilings erected to provide support for the pool. Mr. Sheldon noted that the pilings were driven to substantially less depth than other short piles in the area which led him to conclude that the developers used "soft" piles which had a low-blow content. He concluded that this caused cracks to radiate out of the east end of the pool creating leaks. Mr. Sheldon's examination of the elevations around the pool indicated that the gutters were level; that the problem was therefore one relating to the pool's substructure and not due to any construction deficiency. Also, Mr. Sheldon noted that, based on his calculations, without the usual allowance in calculations for an approximate ten percent (10 percent) deviation in a pool's volume capacity, his calculations indicated that the pool would hold approximately 11,872 gallons whereas the plans called for an approximate gallonage capacity of 10,500 to 11,000 gallons. Finally, Mr. Sheldon indicated that his review of the pool construction at Mariner Village only indicated that there existed one extrusion which he considered not to be critical in view of the overall construction and the pool's layout. Respondent testified that construction at Mariner Village progressed at a reasonable pace indicating that on May 8, 1980, the pool was marble coated, however, the equipment was not completed in the pool room and therefore work could not proceed as scheduled. According to Respondent, the earliest time that the equipment was in place, by other subcontractors, was approximately August 18, 1980, and work commenced rapidly thereafter by Respondent's employees. Respondent testified that an engineer inspected the gutters on July 16, 1980, at which time the gutters were properly erected and that within four days, i.e., on July 20, 1980, the gutters were "low" and the tiles had sunk. Respondent replaced the gutters without cost, however, he refused to do further work on the pool until the substructure was solidified. During this period, Respondent also testified that Mariner Village failed to timely honor draw payment requests which forced him to stop work until funds were received according to the schedule for draws. Finally, Respondent testified that the pilings and related substructures were obligations contracted for and hired independently by the general contractor. For this reason, the Respondent offers that he was not obligated for the failures surrounding the pool at Mariner Village. Respondent admits that the Dubovick project caused problems in that it was one that was left from the predecessor entity, Magic Wands Pools. He admits to delays in construction, however, he testified that he labored as faithfully as he could under the circumstances and further that all corrections and/or repairs were made that were called to his attention. As to the contention that the pool was constructed smaller than the 15,000 gallon volume capacity as reflected in the plans and specifications, Respondent indicates that the 15,000 gallon capacity was an error and further that the Dubovicks never indicated to him that there was any discrepancy or deviations from requirements in the plans and specifications as he was required to do according to the terms of the contract. Respondent indicates a willingness to negotiate with the Dubovicks respecting this omission. Finally, Respondent testified that he never met the Derflers, although he did dispatch a repairman out to remedy their problem. Respondent considered that the problem had been resolved and was unaware that it had not until the subject complaints were filed. Respondent has, however, refunded the Derflers' monies which were expended to hire an outside contractor. Throughout the time in which Respondent was attempting to complete or correct projects which had been started or initiated by Magic Wands Pools, he labored to do so with as much dispatch as possible under the circumstances. Respondent indicates that money was due and owing Magic Wands Pools by many customers who refused or was slow to pay. Respondent has been in the pool construction business in excess of twenty years and based on the experience gained and the nature of that business he (Respondent) refuses to guarantee a completion date for a pool due to weather and other uncertainties beyond his control. He again acknowledged that the repairs took a great deal of time to complete, however, he stressed that he labored to perform those repairs in as much dispatch as possible under the circumstances. Concluding, Respondent offered that part of his problem with the Dubovick pool had to do with his attempt to stay within the setback lines of the Dubovicks' property which prompted him to make minor deviations from the plans and specifications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, who holds certified pool contractors License No. CP- 007871, be placed on probation by Petitioner for a period of one year. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of January, 1982, 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 26th day of January, 1982.
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to a variance from some of the requirements of Rule 10D-5.097, Florida Administrative Code, regarding public swimming pools. At the hearing, both parties presented the testimony of witnesses and offered exhibits. Following the hearing a transcript was filed on March 3, 1989, and the parties were allowed until March 23, 1989, within which to file their proposed recommended orders. Both parties filed proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. All proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the evidence received at the final hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Petitioner submitted an application for a swimming pool operating permit to the Respondent. The Respondent denied the Petitioner's request for an operating permit, whereupon the Petitioner requested a variance from the Public Swimming and Bathing Facilities Advisory Review Board. The Board recommended favorable action on the request for variance, but by letter of July 29, 1988, the Petitioner was advised that the Respondent intended to deny the request for variance. The Petitioner's request for formal hearing followed. The Petitioner operates a public swimming pool in Grassy Key, Florida. The Petitioner has never obtained a permit to operate the pool from the Respondent. The floor and walls of the Petitioner's pool are covered with glazed tile. There is no evidence that the glazed tile on the floor and walls of the Petitioner's pool is anything other than ordinary glazed tile. The coefficient of friction for wet glazed tile is normally between .2 and .25. Approximately twenty-one percent of the surfaces of the floor and walls of the Petitioner's pool consists of grout. The grout is located between the tiles. The top surface of the grout is lower than the top surface of the tiles. The tiles covering the vast majority of the floor and walls of Petitioner's pool are medium blue to dark blue and black in color. Specifically, the tiles are not white or light pastel in color. The tiles covering the vast majority of the floor and walls of the Petitioner's pool reflect less light than would be reflected if they were white or light pastel in color. The more light present in a pool, the greater the ability to detect objects in the pool. A decrease in the amount of light in a pool increases the risk of objects in the pool not being detected. Light colors in pools also facilitate the ability to maintain proper sanitation. An epoxy coating could be placed on the floor and walls of the Petitioner's pool for approximately $1,500.00. Such a coating would improve the safety of the pool by making the pool surfaces more slip resistant. By reason of the glazed tile surface, the Petitioner's pool is a safety hazard to the public. It is not difficult to see people on the bottom of the Petitioner's pool during day or night operation, even though the pool is dark in color and does not have the characteristic of reflecting, rather than absorbing light. Objects on the bottom of the pool are visible from the pool deck. The color of the pool does not appear to be a significant safety hazard. The water clarity in Petitioner's pool is well above average. The color of the pool does not appear to cause any depth perception different from the depth perception problems inherent in any pool of water. Department inspection reports for the period 1981 through 1988 reveal no problems with cleaning the pool, reveal no findings of algae at all, and indicate that the operator of the pool has done a good job of maintaining the pool. The pool has been in continuous operation for over eight years and there have not been any accidents resulting from use of the pool.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that that Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order in this case denying the Petitioner a variance from the "slip resistant" surface requirement of Rule 10D- 5.097(1), Florida Administrative Code, and granting the Petitioner a variance from the requirement of that rule that the pool floor and walls be "white or light pastel in color." DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 15th day of May, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4561 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. The Petitioner's expert testimony regarding the coefficient of friction of the tiles in question is not persuasive and has not been used as a basis for fact-finding in this case. The measurements made by the Petitioner's expert deviate dramatically from the measurements one would expect. There is no persuasive record basis to explain the deviation. The proffered suggestion that the amount of grout affected the measurements is not persuasive, because it is unlikely that the testing equipment came in contact with the grout, inasmuch as the surface of the grout is typically below the surface of the tiles. Paragraph 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. (See discussion of Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, above.) Paragraph 6: First clause (through the word "tiles") is accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraphs 7 through 20: Accepted in substance. Findings proposed by Respondent Paragraphs 1 through 6: Accepted. Paragraphs 7 through 9: Accepted in substance, but with numerous subordinate and unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 10: First sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Second sentence rejected as constituting argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraphs 11 and 12: Accepted. Paragraph 13: Rejected as not completely accurate; the tiles in the subject pool reflect less light than is reflected by a white or pastel colored pool. Paragraph 14: Rejected as irrelevant, because even though the proposed statement is true, algae detection has not been a problem in the subject pool. Paragraph 15: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 16: Rejected for same reason as rejection of Paragraph 14. Paragraph 17: Rejected as being somewhat of an over statement. The subject pool is, however, less safe than a pool that complies with all of the applicable rule criteria. Paragraph 18: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Although the Respondent's expert testified to the opinion proposed in this paragraph, I have not made any finding based on that opinion testimony, because the basis for the opinion is essentially unexplained in the record and appears to be more of a "feeling" than a "fact." Further, other evidence in the record indicates that depth perception in swimming pools is affected by a number of variables other than pool color. Paragraph 19: Rejected as irrelevant, as well as for the reasons discussed immediately above. Paragraph 20: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 21 through 23: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 24: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 25: First sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as unnecessary repetition of previously proposed facts. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Hruska, Esquire Vernis & Bowling, P.A. Post Office Drawer 529 Islamorada, Florida 33036 Morton Laitner, Esquire 401 North West 2nd Avenue Suite 5424 Miami, Florida 33128 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard 7 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact On December 30, 1975, Collier County adopted Ordinance No. 75-57 which required, among other things, swimming pool contractors to be licensed by the county or state after establishing their competency. Prior to this time swimming pool contractors did not need certificates of competency to construct swimming pools. Anthony Schmidt had been engaged in the manufacture and installation of swimming pools for several years before opening a swimming pool business in Collier County. On April 22, 1976 Schmidt entered into a contract (Exhibit 1) to construct a swimming pool for John Dottore in Naples, Florida. Shortly thereafter Schmidt was issued a violation by an investigator of the FCILB for starting a different pool without a license. Schmidt contacted friends to ascertain who he could get to "pull" the permit needed to construct Dottore's pool, and was subsequently introduced to George C. Moyant, Respondent, a resident of Hollywood, Florida. He was introduced to Moyant at Moyant's house at a meeting arranged by mutual friends. The alleged purpose of this meeting was special tutoring of Schmidt by Moyant to prepare Schmidt for the pool contractor's exam and no other subject was discussed at this meeting. No final arrangements for such tutoring were made. Respondent holds Pool Contractor's License # CP C009205 and General Contractor's License #CG C001828 issued by the FCILB. He is president of Allstate Construction College, Inc. and prepares applicants for the various examinations required for registration with the FCILB. Subsequent to the meeting at Moyant's house Schmidt contacted Moyant regarding Moyant pulling a permit for Schmidt to construct Dottore's pool, and on a subsequent visit by Moyant to Naples Moyant, in company with Schmidt, submitted an Application for Building Permit (Exhibit 4) prepared and signed by Schmidt, showing the contractor to be George C. Moyant, License #CP C009205. At the same time Collier County Permit (Exhibit 5) was issued to Moyant as contractor for the construction of a swimming pool for Dottore. Immediately thereafter, at the Collier County Courthouse parking lot Schmidt gave Moyant a check dated May 4, 1976 in the amount of $500. Moyant's testimony that the payment was an advance for tuition is not credible. Moyant admits that Schmidt called him around the first of May for help in getting a permit for the swimming pool for Dottore and that he, Moyant, was "very reluctant" but assented to come to Naples to help Schmidt out and in fact, pulled the permit. Moyant recognized that his actions were in violation of the laws unless "one does things correctly." He advised Schmidt that his brother or the mutual friend, both of whom have general contractor's licenses would act as his, Moyant's, agent "if any problems come up". Before Schmidt completed the pool an investigator for the FCILB became aware of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the permit and the investigation and administrative complaint followed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed general contractor and pool contractor. He is employed by Sally Dysart, Inc., and is currently the qualifying contractor for that company. Additionally, Respondent has served as qualifier for ARK Swimming Pool Service, Inc. On June 6, 1981, Sally Dysart, Inc., contracted with Theresa Pica to construct a swimming pool at her North Lauderdale residence. On June 9, 1981, Respondent obtained a permit from the City of North Lauderdale to construct the Pica pool. The permit indicated that ARK Swimming Pool Service, Inc., was the contractor. The contract specified that the pool would measure 16 x 32 x 3 x 6 1/2 feet, with stainless steel walls. The contract allowed "minor variations in dimensions . . ." and provided that, "Dysart is authorized to use its discretion in making changes or additions if the customer is not immediately available." The pool as installed was 8 feet rather than 6 1/2 feet deep, and the walls were of aluminum rather than stainless steel. These changes were not approved by Theresa Pica and she complained to Petitioner regarding these changes and other problems which are not relevant to the charges herein. This was an 18 inch change in pool depth and could not be considered a minor variation in dimensions, nor could the change in materials be considered insignificant. Respondent should have, but did not, obtain the owner's concurrence before substituting the 8 foot aluminum pool for the 6 1/2 foot steel pool, which the contract called for. This installation was also held to be in violation of Broward County Ordinance Section 9-14(b)(9), by the local board having jurisdiction. Respondent was not properly registered as the qualifying agent for Sally Dysart, Inc., at the time of this project. He was registered as the qualifier for Ark beginning in 1977, but his application to qualify Sally Dysart, Inc., was not received by Petitioner until November 1981 and not issued until December 1981. A Julius Kaplan was also a qualifier for Sally Dysart, Inc., but his application was not received by Petitioner until October 1981. Sally Dysart, Inc., was therefore not qualified by a licensed pool contractor at the time this company undertook the Pica project. The permit was improperly drawn on Ark Pool Service, Inc., by Respondent since Ark was not a party to the Pica contract. Respondent demonstrated that the administrator for Sally Dysart, Inc., was attempting to secure a qualifier for this company between April and December 1981. Thus, while some effort had been made to qualify Sally Dysart, Inc., this had not been accomplished at the time the Pica project was undertaken. Sally Dysart, Inc., contracted with James J. Mirrione to install a spa for him at his residence in Boca Raton. The permit was obtained by Respondent on behalf of Sally Dysart, Inc., on April 23, 1981. As noted above, Respondent was not a qualifier for Sally Dysart until December 1981. No final inspection of the Mirrione installation was ever made. Respondent believed that officer personnel at Sally Dysart, Inc., had arranged for such inspection, but it was either not requested or requested but not performed. On June 25, 1981, Warren Schober contracted with Sally Dysart, Inc., to construct a pool at his Miami residence. He negotiated the contract with a Milton Wolf who he understood to be the sales manager for Sally Dysart, Inc. The project was completed, but Schober encountered problems with a defective light and leaks in the pool. The difficulties were eventually corrected and Schober is now satisfied with the installation. In late August 1981, Milton Wolf agreed to sell Dr. Ronald Scott a swimming pool for $5,970. Scott made an initial payment of $3,970 to Milton Wolf by cashier's check dated September 8, 1981. Scott believed he was dealing with Sally Dysart, Inc., since Wolf held himself out as a representative of that company. Although he had some reservations about making the check payable to Milton Wolf personally, he had contacted a Better Business Bureau to determine that Sally Dysart, Inc., was a reputable company. Further, Wolf was available when he telephoned him at the Sally Dysart, Inc., offices. Sally Dysart, Inc., later disclaimed the Wolf agreement but offered to honor it if Scott would turn over the balance due. However, Scott rejected this offer and it was later withdrawn. He did not receive the pool or return of his initial payment. The evidence did not establish whether or not Sally Dysart, Inc., approved the contract for sale of the pool negotiated by Wolf. However, there was no construction contemplated and therefore no active involvement by Respondent in his capacity as construction supervisor. On July 31, 1981, Milton Wolf, on behalf of Sally Dysart, Inc., contracted with Mr. William D. Black for the sale and installation of a swimming pool at the latter's Miami resident. By check dated August 28, 1981, Black made an initial payment of $4,585 to Wolf. Black left the payee portion of the check blank at Wolf's request on the representation that he would use a stamp to supply the Dysart firm name. Wolf later filled in his own name, cashed the check and absconded. Black had no reason to distrust Wolf as he had communicated with Wolf at Sally Dysart, Inc., and had checked on the company through the Better Business Bureau. Wolf held himself out as sales manager and this was not repudiated by Sally Dysart, Inc., until after Wolf absconded. Respondent obtained a permit for the Black project on October 13, 1981, and some of the initial approvals were made. However, by letter dated September 22, 1981, Sally Dysart, Inc. (by its president, Sally Dysart), advised Black that the company would attempt to complete the project only if he would pay the balance of all payments due. This letter also disclaimed responsibility for Wolf's representations. In response, Black demanded that Sally Dysart, Inc., honor the contract and proposed that remaining payments be placed in escrow pending satisfactory completion. This proposal was rejected, and Black did not obtain the pool nor was his $4,585 "deposit" returned. Respondent sought to establish that Milton Wolf was not authorized to act on behalf of Sally Dysart, Inc., but that he was merely present in the Dysart offices as a potential business partner. His contact with customers was purportedly limited to investigation of leads and company business potential. However, the testimony of a former Dysart employee established that Wolf did make sales and brought in cash receipts to the company prior to his defalcation. Therefore, regardless of any private understanding between Sally Dysart, Inc., and Milton Wolf, the latter was holding himself out to the public as a company representative with the knowledge and approval of Sally Dysart, Inc.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's contractor licenses for a period of ninety (90) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 16th day of May 1984.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's products, the Transfer Tier and the Easy Ladder, should be approved for use in public swimming pools throughout the State of Florida?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner manufactures the products under review in this case: the Transfer Tier and the Easy Ladder (hereinafter referred to as the "Products"). The Products are designed and intended for use by the aged and disabled in entering and exiting swimming pools. The Easy Ladder is intended to be used by people who are able to walk but have difficulty in using a traditional swimming pool vertical ladder. The Transfer Tier is intended for use by people with more disabling handicaps. The Products are intended to be used as portable devices which are not left in the swimming pool. There is nothing to prevent purchasers of the Products, however, from leaving the Products in a swimming pool for extended periods of time. Although designed for use by the aged and disabled, either Product can be used by anyone in the same manner that steps are used. By letter dated May 7, 1986, the Petitioner requested a review of the Products by the Respondent and approval of the Products for use in Florida public swimming pools. The Respondent reviewed the Products and determined that both Products failed to meet the requirements of the Respondent's Rules. The Products are made of fiberglass. When placed in a swimming pool there are areas of the swimming pool and parts of the Products which cannot be seen. Therefore, algae and sediment in the pool can go undetected. Although the Products are intended to be used as portable devices, they can be left in the pool. Additionally, although all areas of the Products are accessible so that algae formation can be prevented, the Products would have to be removed from the pool in order to gain access. The Products are not designed to be installed as a part of a swimming pool. The front edge intersections and the treads and risers of the steps of the Products do not have contrasting colored stripes on the risers of the steps at least two inches wide. The handrails on the Products are not anchored in the pool deck or the bottom step. There are no nationally recognized standards for the Products. The Products are within limits of sound engineering practice. The metallic handrails of the Products and the metallic legs of the Transfer Tier are not to be bonded to other metallic parts of the swimming pool with copper wire no smaller than No. 8 wire. These metallic parts of the Products will be touching the side and bottom of the swimming pool. The metallic parts are not fixed to the swimming pool. They are also not separated from the pool by a permanent barrier. The Transfer Tier is not designed to fit completely flush with the swimming pool wall and floor. Additionally, either Product, if not properly placed in a swimming pool will not fit completely flush with the swimming pool floor. Therefore, the Products will not preclude entanglement or obstruction which could result in the submerged entrapment of bathers. By letter dated May 30, 1986, the Petitioner was informed by the Respondent that the Products failed to comply with the Respondent's Rules. By letter dated July 2, 1986, the Petitioner requested a formal hearing to contest the denial of the Petitioner's application and requested a review of the Respondent's decision by the Public Swimming and Bathing Facilities Advisory Review Board. The Public Swimming and Bathing Facilities Advisory Review Board unanimously approved the Respondent's decision. There is a need in Florida for the type of products proposed by the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order denying approval of the Products for use in public swimming pools in the State of Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 24th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3999 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection Deficiency No. 1 3 and 7. Deficiency Nos. 2 & 3 Irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 4 and 9. Deficiency No. 4 11. Deficiency No. 5 12. Deficiency No. 6 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 Hereby accepted. 2 2. 3 5. 4 6. 4a Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 4b 9. 4c 10. 4d Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 4e The first sentence is accepted in 12. The conclusion of law of the second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 4f 13. 5 14. 6 15. 7 16. 8 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 9. Irrelevant. 10 The first sentence is accepted in 17. The rest of the paragraph is irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Michael O. Mathis, Esquire Senior Staff Attorney Office of Licensure and Certification Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Frances Daly President and Marketing Director Triad Technologies, Inc. 4000 Galster Road East Syracuse, New York 13057
Findings Of Fact Atlas Pools, Inc., contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Thompson in May, 1978, to construct a swimming pool on the Thompson property for a completed price of $5,940. Work ceased in mid-July, 1978, by which time the Thompsons had paid Atlas Pools $5,643. The Thompsons hired another pool contractor to complete the project at additional cost in excess of $2,000. Atlas Pools contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Perry in June, 1978, to construct a swimming pool on the Perry property for a completed cost of $5,770. Work ceased in late July, 1978, after the Perrys had paid Atlas Pools $5,474.50. The Perrys completed the project through self-help and use of another pool contractor at a further cost of $1,566. Atlas Pools contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Wolters in June, 1978, to construct a swimming pool on the Wolters' property for a completed cost of $6,980. Work ceased in mid-July, 1978, after the Wolters had paid Atlas Pools $6,631. The Wolters completed the pool through self help at an additional cost in excess of $1,300. Atlas Pools contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Albert Sentman in June, 1978, to construct a spa on the Sentman property for a completed cost of $5,500. The Sentmans paid Atlas Pools a $550 deposit after which the spa was delivered but not installed. The Sentmans completed the project by other means at an additional cost of $6,137. Respondent abandoned each of the above projects without notice to the customer, who ultimately learned of the company's bankruptcy from a third party source. Each of the four projects described above was completed at a final cost to the purchaser in excess of $900 over the contract price. The company filed a Voluntary Petition of Bankruptcy with the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, on August 1, 1978. Thereafter, on March 7, 1979, the Brevard County Contractors Licensing Board revoked the certificate held by Atlas Pools for a minimum period of one year, with the requirement that financial rehabilitation be demonstrated as a condition of reinstatement. At the time of bankruptcy, Respondent was president of Atlas Pools, Inc., and owned one-third of the stock. He was, at all times relevant to this proceeding, the company's only licensed pool contractor. He is currently employed in pool construction work by a licensed contractor. Proposed findings of fact were submitted by the parties. To the extent these proposed findings have not been adopted herein or are inconsistent with the above findings, they have been specifically rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Pool Contractor's License No. RP 0018040 issued to Crawford L. Grove, be suspended until Respondent demonstrates compliance with the financial responsibility standards established by Section 489.115, Florida Statutes (1979). DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1980.
Findings Of Fact At all times here involved Respondent held a general contractor's license No. CG C011375 and a pool contractor's license No. CP C010307 issued by Petitioner. Respondent was the owner and qualifying contractor for Player Pools, Inc. In late 1975 Player Pools, Inc. entered into a contract with Robert Pereux, a general contractor, to construct a pool at a residence Pereux was building for Carl Reichenbach. Plans submitted with application for permit were approved by the City of Coral Springs Building Inspection Department and construction of the pool was commenced early in 1976 and completed in May 1976. The pool passed all inspections except the electrical inspection, which has not passed on 3-26-76. Had. the electrical discrepancies been corrected immediately, the pool would have passed final inspection. Respondent completed the major portion of the construction and, while the general contractor was backfilling the pool, a large vertical crack some 4 inches wide appeared in the wall of the pool adjacent to the house. The general practice in Broward County is for the general contractor to back-fill the pool after' the floor and walls of the pool have been completed by the pool contractor. No evidence was presented showing who corrected this large vertical crack or what caused the crack. Respondent's contention that this crack was caused by the vertical weight of the tractor used to back-fill, while adjacent to the wall, is not credible. Had the tractor hit the wall while back-filling, a crack could have resulted. Apparently this large vertical crack from the floor to the coping was repaired by someone and the pool was subsequently filled with water in June 1976. When this occurred, hairline cracks near the cove of the pool appeared and the pool leaked. Cove was defined as the part where the wall joins the floor of the pool. Respondent, pursuant to a verbal agreement with Pereux, attempted to repair the cracks but apparently without success. Pereux died early in 1977 and the provisions of this verbal agreement were not presented. A dispute between Pereux and Respondent arose regarding payment for the work Respondent had done on the pool and Respondent filed a mechanic's lien against the property. A copy of release of lien against Reichenbach's property was admitted as Exhibit 8. The amount satisfied by Exhibit 8 is the same amount Respondent claims was owed him by Pereux in his demand for payment dated May 7, 1976 (Exhibit 7). Following receipt of a complaint, the City of Coral Springs issued Notice of Violation to Respondent, charging violations of sections 2301.1(b) and 5001.2(b) South Florida Building Code (Exhibit 2).
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent, George W. Boukater, was a certified general contractor, license number CG C012598, and a registered pool contractor, license number RP 0032042. Respondent was the qualifier for Swimming Pools by M.J. Donohue, Inc. (Donohue), under license number RP 0032042, from February 1979 until June 30, 1985. On July 29, 1984 Donohue contracted to construct a swimming pool at the residence of Ms. Loretta Hunley in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for the sum of $6,400.00. Respondent, on behalf of Donohue, applied for and received the building and plumbing permits for the pool. Apart from securing the permits, Respondent had no contact with the job and never inspected its progress. By August 30, 1984, Donohue had substantially completed the pool. All that remained to be done was to marcite the pool, hook up the pool light and plumbing, and install the pumps. However, before these items could be completed it was necessary that the area surrounding the pool be backfilled, the patio poured, and the electric installed. Under the July 29, 1984 contract Ms. Hunley did not contract with Donohue for any patio, electric or fence work. She expressly retained responsibility for that work in an effort to save money on the pool construction. The area surrounding the pool was not backfilled and the patio slab approved by the Broward County Building and Zoning Department (County) until September 14, 1984. As of September 5, 1985, the fence work was still in violation of the County code. The electric work received the County's final approval on January 8, 1986. In October 1984 demands were exchanged between Ms. Hunley and Donohue. Ms. Hunley demanded that the pool be completed. Donohue demanded adequate electrical service so the pool could be pumped and cleaned for marciting, and dates when someone would be available at the premises. In November 1984 Donohue got its pumps in operation, however Ms. Hunley disconnected them in the evenings. Consequently, the pool could not be drained and cleaned to marcite it. In November 1984 Ms. Hunley ejected Donohue from the job site. Subsequently, Ms. Hunley and Donohue formally settled their dispute.
Findings Of Fact The Warwick Condominium Association, Inc., operates a swimming pool at its condominium located at 5100 DuPont Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The swimming pool is licensed as a commercial swimming pool, and it has satisfactorily passed the inspections conducted by Respondent over the past two years. The Warwick pool has a perimeter gutter system which meets Respondent's regulations. The Condominium Association plans to renovate the pool. The renovation plans, which must be approved by Respondent, involve changing the pool from the approved gutter system to a recessed automatic surface skimmer system. The pool dimensions are approximately 25' x 46', and the pool surface water area is approximately 1,035 square feet. Respondent's rules prohibit the use of recessed automatic surface skimmers for pools larger than 800 square feet and for pools wider than 20'. Therefore, Petitioner's proposed modifications to the pool do not meet existing rule requirements for commercial pools. The pool renovation plans were not approved by Respondent since the plans do not meet the standards set by the Department's rules. Petitioner submitted its proposed plans to the independent Public Swimming and Bathing Facilities Advisory Review Board, and that Board recommended to the Department that Petitioner's request for a variance from the Department's rules be granted. The Department denied Petitioner's request for a variance. There is no evidence that the Department considered the Advisory Review Board's recommendation to approve a variance, and there is no evidence as to what standards the Department has used in approving variances, if any variances have been approved. The location of the Warwick pool is unique and causes the Warwick to experience extraordinary problems in maintaining the cleanliness of the pool. The Warwick pool is located adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway and a bascule bridge crossing the Waterway. The pool receives an extraordinary amount of highway soot and dirt due to its location next to the elevated highway and bridge. Additionally, grease and oils from boats idling next to the swimming pool waiting for the bridge to open are deposited on the surface of the Warwick swimming pool. Swimming pools at nearby condominiums are not located directly on the Waterway. They are located either on the roofs of those condominium buildings or on the other side of those buildings away from the Waterway. Accordingly, the location of the Warwick pool is unusual. A prevailing southeast wind blows across the Waterway and across the Warwick pool. It then hits the wall of the condominium building and reverses its direction. It creates a great deal of turbulence on the surface water of the pool, pushing the water and the debris on the surface of the water to the south wall of the pool which is located at the pool's deep end. The dirt, debris, grease, and oil deposited by the vehicular and boat traffic accumulate at, and adhere to, the south wall of the pool at the deep end. Cleaning the tile at the south end of the pool requires constant effort. The accumulation of grease and oil at the deep end of the swimming pool is unusual. The perimeter gutter at the deep end of the Warwick pool is slightly higher than the gutters around the other three sides of the pool. Accordingly, the surface water does not overflow the gutter at the deep end except when there are a number of bathers in the pool, thereby altering the water level and creating additional turbulence. At such times and during heavy rains, the gutters flood, and the debris and grease are carried back into the pool where they come in contact with bathers. There is no guarantee that attempting to lower the level of the south gutter will make the perimeter gutter system ideally level. The condominium manager and one of the condominium owners, each of whom have substantial expertise and experience in constructing and operating swimming pools, have determined that the unique problems of the Warwick pool can be resolved by the installation of recessed automatic surface skimmers at the south end of the pool. All witnesses in this proceeding agree that proper skimmer location is determined by the prevailing wind. The amount of surface water removed is the same for both the perimeter gutter system and the recessed automatic surface skimmer system. The accessibility to debris is greater with a gutter system than with the skimmer system since the skimmer system collects debris and retains it in baskets which are then manually emptied. There are greater losses of water with the gutter system than with the skimmer system. Department employees visited the Warwick pool on one occasion for approximately 45 minutes. They placed the gutter system into operation and found that it was working. They testified that the Warwick's system is operational and therefore should simply be improved. The Warwick's witnesses agreed that the system is operational but have shown that the system does not operate properly based upon their extended familiarity with that particular swimming pool. The opinion of the experts with extended experience with the Warwick pool has been given more weight than those who visited the pool on one occasion for less than-one hour, particularly since the Department's witnesses admitted that the conditions at the Warwick during their site visit were not the normal conditions. Although the Department's witnesses clearly have a preference for gutter systems over recessed skimmer systems, no evidence was offered to show that the skimmer system (allowed by the Department in smaller swimming pools) would pose a threat to the health or safety of the bathing public should a variance be granted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: A Final Order be entered approving Petitioner's request for a variance. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of February, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 day 9th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER D0AH CASE NO. 88-3045 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 4, 5, 7-14, 16, and 17 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 2 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 6 has been rejected as being subordinate to the issues under consideration herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 3 and 15 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or conclusions of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 and 9 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4- 6, 10, and 11 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 7 and 8 have been rejected as being contrary to the evidence presented herein. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 12 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, HRS Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Lois J. Minetti, Manager Warwick Condominium Association, Inc. 5100 DuPont Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Martha F. Barrera, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2421 Southwest Sixth Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315
