Findings Of Fact Eduardo Kirksey is licensed as a certified residential contractor, holding license CR C012717. He qualified a corporation known as Modern Construction Company, Inc. (Modern) to engage in contracting.Modern entered into a contract on about July 28, 1986 with Ira Goldstein of 4440 Southwest 32nd Drive, Hollywood, Florida for construction of two-story room addition which would include a family room, bedroom and bath. Modern was to provide the plan by which the addition would be built. A rough sketch of the addition is included on the contract. More specific plans, which are similar to architectural drawings, were thereafter prepared for submission with the building application, which Modern filed with the Broward County Building and Zoning Enforcement Division. The contract was later amended to add a balcony around the second floor of the addition. The plans which are in evidence as Department Exhibit 4 are the second set of plans. According to these plans, the second floor bedroom had a 6" x 6" sliding glass door. The door opened on to a balcony which was created by cantilevered joists consisting of 2" x 10" pieces of lumber bolted to 2" x 12" rafters between the first and second floor. These 2" x 10" members extended out four feet from the building. According to the plans, 2" x 6" decking was to be placed across these joists, and an appropriate railing would then be placed around the balcony. Mr. Kirksey submitted the amended application for the permit and the plan to the Broward County Plan Review Board for approval, and it was approved. After construction began, Mr. Goldstein determined that he did not wish the floor of the balcony to be pressure treated wooden decking. Instead, he wanted a tile floor on the deck. Mr. Kirksey had already filed two sets of plans with Broward County on the project, the first for the addition without the balcony, and the second for the addition with the balcony. He did not want to file a third building permit application which would also require the submission of new drawings. Mr. Kirksey did agree to change the construction to accommodate Mr. Goldstein's desire to tile the balcony but declined to do the tile work himself as part of his contract with Mr. Goldstein. Mr. Goldstein was to arrange for the tiling of the deck. The original design for the decking would have spaced the 2" x 6" lumber which made up the decking with small spaces between each piece of lumber to allow water to fall through during rain. In order to lay tile down, it was necessary to place plywood across the joists, rather than 2" x 6" pressure treated lumber. Before the plywood could be laid, however, Mr. Kirksey had to remove the 2" x 10" cantilevered joists from between the first and second floor, because the original design called for those joists to be level. They were reinstalled at about a 1/2 inch slant so that the water would then drain from the balcony after it had been tiled. In addition, Mr. Kirksey then had to place soffit under the balcony, and put facia around the bottom of the deck. Neither the soffit nor the facia were required in the plans. Although it was more expensive for Mr. Kirksey to add these items, Mr. Goldstein was not charged any additional money for this work. The plywood that was put down over the 2" x 10" rafters instead of the pressure treated 2" x 6" lumber was 3/4 inch exterior grade plywood. Pressure treated plywood was not used because the plywood was to be covered with tile, and if properly tiled, pressure treated plywood is unnecessary. Moreover, even if tile is put over pressure treated plywood, if tile is not laid properly, the pressure treated plywood will rot as well as exterior plywood will rot. It would not have been possible to place tile over the 2" x 6" pressure treated lumber which the amended plan filed with the Broward Building and Zoning Enforcement Division had called for. The 2" x 6" members would shrink and move, causing the tile to crack. Some type of plywood had to be used instead of decking to permit Mr. Goldstein to tile the deck. The 3/4 inch plywood which Mr. Kirksey used met or exceeded the standards established by the South Florida Building Code. No sealant, or paint, was applied to the plywood, nor was the deck covered with visquine. Preparation of the plywood before the tile was placed over it would be the job of the person doing the tile work. An inspector from the Broward County Building and Zoning Enforcement Division visited the site on a number of occasions. During the course of those inspections some of the work was originally rejected by the inspector. For example, the balcony railing pickets had a spacing greater than 5 inches and the top of the rail was only 36 inches high, not 42 inches high. As a result of this rejection, the picket spacing and railing were changed. Ultimately, the inspector gave final approval after having seen the plywood deck, even though no new plans had been submitted to change the deck to have a plywood floor for tile rather than the originally permitted 2" X 6" pressure treated lumber deck. When the job was completed by Modern it was in the condition a project would normally have been left where the contractor was not responsible for laying the tile over the balcony floor. Because the floor was to be tiled, there was no reason for Mr. Kirksey to have painted the balcony floor. In addition, the contract did not require that any painting be done. Mr. Goldstein did the tile work on the deck himself although he had no prior experience in laying tile. Mr. Goldstein spoke with one of Modern's workmen about how to lay tile. This was an informal conversation, and Mr. Kirksey, the contractor, never advised Mr. Goldstein on how to lay tile. I do not accept the testimony of Mr. Goldstein that the employee of Modern who explained to him how to lay tile was the job foreman. Nothing in the contract with Modern required Modern to lay tile, or to advise Mr. Goldstein how to lay tile, so whether the person who discussed laying tile with Mr. Goldstein was a foreman is not significant. Sometime after all the work had been completed by both Modern and Mr. Goldstein, Mr. Goldstein's daughter Evette stepped out onto the balcony, and her foot and leg went through the balcony. This occurred because the plywood had not been sealed or protected before the tile was laid by Mr. Goldstein. As a consequence, the plywood had rotted under the tile. The rot also extended to the supporting joists. Broward County has adopted and incorporated into the Broward County Charter, Chapter 71-575, Laws of Florida, a Special Act of the Legislature. Both adopt for Broward County the "South Florida Building Code, Dade County 1970 edition, as amended." The Department included with its proposed recommended order portions of the South Florida Building Code, 1986 Broward County edition, for the purpose of demonstrating that the conduct of Mr. Kirksey violated Section 301(a) and 302.1(e) of that 1986 code. As a matter of evidence, the 1986 Broward County edition of the Southern Florida Building Code does not appear to apply. The Department's exhibit 7, which is "a copy of the Broward ordinance which adopts the South Florida Building Code" (Tr. 6) shows that it is the South Florida Building Code, Dade County 1970 edition which applies in Broward County. No portion of that document has been offered in the record of this case. As a consequence, there is no record evidence that Mr. Kirksey has violated a portion of an applicable code. It is true that Mr. Joseph Montagnino testified that Section 301(a) of the South Florida Building Code would not permit a change in a plan once it had been approved (Tr. 22, 104). In a case such as this, however, it is necessary for the Department to produce the text of the applicable building code, which has been adopted either by State statute or local ordinance. It cannot prove a violation through the testimony of a witness who merely characterizes his recollection of the text of an authoritative code. Moreover, other witnesses who are experts in construction trades in Broward County testified that it is common for inspectors to approve changes such as that made by Mr. Kirksey here, at the request of Mr. Goldstein, to substitute plywood flooring for pressure treated decking, without the need for amended plans or permits. (Tr. 75-77, 88- 89). Without evidence of the text of the applicable code, it is not possible to determine whether these experts, or Mr. Montagnino are correct. Since Mr. Goldstein, the homeowner, intended to do the tile work, it would not have been Mr. Kirksey's responsibility to pull additional permits for the tile work. At most, Mr. Kirksey's duty might have been to have obtained approval of amended plans, showing the slight pitch of the joists supporting the balcony floor, and the substitution of plywood and tile for 2" X 6" pressure treated lumber as the flooring for the balcony. Mr. Kirksey is in no way responsible for the inadequate preparation of the plywood surface for the application of the tile. Mr. Kirksey is in no way responsible for informal advice given by an employee of Modern, whose identity cannot be determined from the evidence in this case, to Mr. Goldstein about the proper way to prepare the plywood deck for tiling. Tiling was not part of the construction contract which Mr. Goldstein entered into with Mr. Kirksey's company. Mr. Kirksey is therefore not liable for inadequate supervision of employees on the job. Mr. Kirksey's employees performed the work required under the agreement which Modern had with Mr. Goldstein, as the parties amended it after the construction began.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered by the Board finding Eduardo Kirksey not guilty of the violations set out in Counts I, II or III of the Administrative Complaint. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of December, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 24th day of December, 1991.
The Issue Whether the Respondent willfully violated local building codes and abandoned a job.
Findings Of Fact David Cobb is a registered general and registered roofing contractor with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The job in question was done in Gainesville, Florida. Gainesville has a local building code, having adopted the Southern Standard Building Code, but does not have a local competing board. Cobb entered into a contract with John Larramore for a room addition to Larramore's home. Larramore paid Cobb a total of $2,475.84 on the job which was priced as $4,080.24, an amount which included the price of floor covering which both parties acknowledged would be purchased by Larramore and deducted from the monies paid Cobb. Cobb began work on the project. Larramore was not happy with the craftsmanship on the job, which was overseen by Cobb's foreman. Eventually, Larramore contacted a friend who was a contractor. This friend indicated to Larramore that the job should be inspected by the building inspectors of Gainesville, and Larramore contacted the Building Department of Gainesville. Pending inspection by the Department, Larramore told Cobb to stop work until he was contacted again. The chief building official, Leslie Davis, inspected the Larramore job on May 4, 1979. He found several violations of the local building code. Davis was accompanied by the Board's investigator, Herman Cherry. Davis contacted Cobb and advised him to correct the code violations. Davis sent Cobb a letter on May 10, 1979, outlining the violations and giving Cobb 14 days to correct these violations. See Exhibit 5. Cobb tried to contact Larramore by telephone without success concerning correction and completion of the job. Eventually, Cobb wrote Larramore an undated letter, Exhibit 4, which was written after the inspection by Davis and Cherry on May 4, 1979. Larramore was uncertain of the date he received the letter but did acknowledge it was after the Davis/Cherry inspection. Larramore did not contact Cobb after he received Cobb's letter. Instead, he contracted with another contractor to complete the job. This contractor began work on May 17, 1979.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board take no action against David Cobb. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael E. Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Mr. David Cobb Post Office Box 1306 16146 James Couzens Freeway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Detroit, Michigan 48221
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based on the Administrative Complaint of the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, now referred to as State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The essential allegations of the Administrative Complaint are as found in the issue statement of this Recommended Order and that discussion in the issue statement is incorporated into the Findings of Fact and made a part hereof. The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, is an agency of the State of Florida, which has the responsibility to regulate those individuals who serve the public in the capacity of contractors in the State of Florida. This regulatory function carries with it the obligation to prosecute those individual licensees whom the regulatory agency believes to have committed offenses as defined by Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. The possible outcome of such a prosecution carries with it the potential revocation or suspension of the license of those persons regulated by the agency. On this occasion, by Administrative Complaint, the Petitioner has charged E. J. Pollock, d/b/a Miami Advertising, Inc., with violations of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, as set out herein. The Respondent has replied to the Administrative Complaint by reguesting a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing, which de novo hearing was held on the date and at the time and place set out above. E. J. Pollock, d/b/a Miami Advertising, Inc., is the holder of a Certified general Contractor's license, No. CG C004577, held with the Petitioner. That license was current and active in October, 1975, and continued as an active license until the year 1977 when the license became inactive and it remains inactive at this time. The facts reveal that the Respondent in 1975 entered into a discussion with Dr. Thor Brickman about assisting Dr. Brickman in obtaining a building permit from the Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department, Dade County, Florida. This permit was to allow the construction of certain office alterations of Dr. Brickman's office located at 1136 N.W. 119th Street, Dade County, Florida. The plans and specifications for such alterations may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. After some discussion, the Respondent and Dr. Brickman concluded an arrangement by which the Respondent would act as a contractor on the job, in the sense of having the overall responsibility for its construction. This included the responsibility to pay the workers, sub contractors and material man. The agreement between Pollock and Brickman was one in which Pollock was acting in his individual capacity as opposed to through affiliation with a contracting firm. However, at the time Pollock entered into this agreement with Dr. Brickman, his Certified general Contractor's license had been transferred to an affiliation with Miami Advertising, Inc. The Respondent had made this transfer in anticipation of a job to be performed for Miami Advertising, Inc., and in fact certain preliminary matters had been concluded with Pollock acting as manager for the project for Miami Advertising, Inc. Miami Advertising, Inc., was without knowledge of the contract between Pollock and Dr. Brickman. Notwithstanding the lack of knowledge on the part of Miami Advertising, Inc., and the representations to Brickman that the Respondent was acting in his individual capacity when he contracted to remodel Brickman's office, the Respondent applied for a building permit to be issued by the Dade County Building and Zoning Department and in doing so he indicated that he was securing that permit as a qualifier for Miami Advertising, Inc. This can be seen in the petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence which is a copy of the building permit application as issued on October 31, 1975. Pollock commenced the work and Dr. Brickman paid Pollock directly for the work that was being done. The parent checks were endorsed and cashed by Pollock. The amount Pollock received totaled $6,797.22. Sometime in December, 1975, the owner, Dr. Brickman, became disenchanted with some of the workers whom Pollock had on the job in the sense that those workers had been drinking while on the job. Brickman advised Pollock of this and indicated to Pollock that he did not want those persons on the job without supervision. Nonetheless, the owner continued to advance money to Pollock to pay for the job as contracted for. In January, 1976, the Respondent left the job and Brickman was of the impression that the roof on the extension was finished and that there was no problem with the roof, but this impression was wrong because in February, 1976, one of the owner's tenants began to complaint about the roof leaking and those complaints continued until the tenant moved out due to water damage. This caused Brickman to lose moneys in rentals. When Brickman spoke with Pollock about the leaking roof, Pollock sent a roofer to the job to see about the problems but Brickman was not satisfied with that roofer and declined to have him make any corrections to the roof job. (Although the Respondent denies the responsibility for the completion of the roofing work on the Brickman project, the testimony clearly reveals that he had accepted that responsibility as a part of the contract.) The roofer spoken of, whose name is Montgomery, came to the job in March, 1976. Subsequent to Montgomery's visit, problems continued to occur with the roof and the condition of the roof in April, 1976, and the interior of the building may be seen in the Composite Exhibit No. 1 by the Petitioner, which is a series of photos depicting the roof and interior. Pollock would not return and complete the job and Dr. Brickman made a complaint to cause administrative charges against the Respondent. This original complaint was dropped and in November, 1977, Pollock called about completing the job which was still unfinished. Brickman agreed to have Pollock cane and complete the job. Pollock did not return to the job as he stated he would do. In December, 1978, a representative of the Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department went to the project and found that the job was closed and found that no framing inspection had been requested by Pollock and completed as required by Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department Code. Other matters within the job site were found to be deficient. The original building permit had expired and the required roofing permit had never been granted. The condition of the project as it existed at the time of the inspection may be found in certain photographs taken by the Building Inspector which may be found as a part of the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The problem with permits was subsequently rectified; however, based upon the inspector's evaluation, notices of violations were filed in January, 1979, against the Respondent Pollock. The violations spoken to above were for violations of the building and zoning code, particularly Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department Code No. 305.2, failure to call for inspections between October 31, 1971, and January 4, 1979, and Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department Code Section No. 304.4(b), failure to construct office alterations according to plans between October 31, 1975, and January 4, 1979. (These provisions are part of the South Florida Building Code which is used by Metropolitan Dade County.) The charges were made through a two-count information in Case 79-53600 in the County Court in and for Dade County, Florida. For the former violation, the Respondent was adjudged guilty and received a fine of $750.00 with $25.00 court costs, and for the latter count Pollock was sentenced, with the sentence being suspended from day to day and term to term. This Statement of Charges and Disposition may be found as petitioner' s Composite Exhibit No 3 admitted into evidence, a copy of the Charges, Judgment, Sentence and Order of the Court. The Respondent, Pollock, was also charged by Metropolitan Dade County with a violation of the Code of Metro Dade, Chapter 10, Section 10-22 (b), abandonment of the construction project without legal authority. (The disposition of that charge is unknown to the Hearing Officer, in that it was not presented as a matter of proof in the course of the hearing and the facts of the existence of such charge came in by a stipulation of fact between the parties to this action.) The Respondent returned to the job in January, 1979, and on the date of the hearing 95 to 99 percent of the job had been completed. Still remaining to be completed were certain roofing work with metal-to-metal soldering and gravel stops to be concluded and at that time the roof was still leaking. In view of the damage to Brickman' s property, a claim was made against the liability insurance required by Subsection 468.106(6), Florida Statutes. This claim was denied by the insurance carrier because their insurance covered Miami Advertising, Inc., only, and that company had no knowledge of the contract or the job. An indication of this denial may be found as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence, which are copies of letters denying coverage. They are addressed to Dr. Brickman and are from Parliament Insurance Company, insurer of Miami Advertising, Inc.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, E. J. Pollock, who holds his license as qualifier for Miami Advertising, Inc., License No. CG C004577, be suspended for a period of one (1) year. This recommendation is made with the knowledge of the letters offered in mitigation of the penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire Sinoff, Edwards & Alford 2400 Independent Square One Independent Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 H. Adams Weaver, Esquire 310 Okeechobee Boulevard Post Office Box "M" West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Julian Irby was a licensed Professional Engineer with license number PE 43316 and Irby Engineering & Construction, Inc., held Certificate of Authorization #9511 issued by the Board of Professional Engineers. Mr. Irby has been licensed in the State of Florida as a professional engineer since 1990 and spent 21 years in the United States Navy Civil Engineer Corps. He is also a licensed general contractor. Respondent Irby was the engineer of record, with the firm name on the title block of plans for a residential construction project described as, "House Relocation, Foundation Design, 1000 Blk La Paz St., Pensacola, FL" (the relocation project). On or about June 2, 2004, Irby signed and sealed page one of one with a site plan and foundation pier detail for House Relocation at 1000 La Paz Street, and filed it with the Building Inspections Department of Escambia County (Building Department). On or about June 7, 2004, Irby signed and sealed page one of one with a site plan and foundation pier detail for House Relocation at 1000 La Paz Street, and filed it with the Building Department. On or about June 25, 2004, Irby signed and sealed six of six pages of plans (the June 25 plans) for House Relocation at 1000 La Paz Street, and filed them with the Building Department. Permitting for the project was performed in a two- step process, with a preliminary foundation plan submitted before the house was moved from the old site in order to obtain a moving permit and foundation permit. After those permits were issued, Respondents received test results from a geotechnical firm that caused some alteration in the design of the footings to accommodate the water table at the new site. The plans upon which the building permits were ultimately issued and which were used by the construction crew in the building process were the June 25 plans. On or about February 1, 2005, Irby signed and sealed seven of seven pages of plans for House Relocation at 1000 La Paz Street, and filed them with the Building Department on February 24, 2005. The seven pages of plans for the House Relocation signed and sealed February 1, 2005, and filed with the Building Inspections Department of Escambia County on February 24, 2005, represent the relocation project as completed. Changes made during construction and approved in the field are reflected in this set of plans. The Florida Building Code 2001, as amended 2003, is applicable to this case. The relocation project involved moving an existing home from Perdido Bay to a location several hundred feet further inland. The house was an elevated structure at the original location and was elevated at the La Paz address. Respondent Irby was not only the engineer of record but was also the contractor for the project. Certain features of the construction and design of the original structure were not known at the time the original plans were submitted for the foundation. For example, there was a façade that hid from view the I-beam, stringers and pipe posts under the floor of the home. These features could not be seen until the façade was removed in preparation for the move. Relocation projects are subject to certain exceptions under the Florida Building Code. Some design specifications normally required when building a house are not required for a relocation project, because the existing structure need not be redesigned or brought up to code as long as it meets conditions specified in Florida Building Code Section 101.4.2.3. There is no allegation that those conditions were not met in this case. The primary requirement for a relocation design is foundation plans sealed by a professional engineer or architect, if required by the Florida Building Code for residential buildings or structures of the same occupancy class. Respondents' plans filed with the Escambia County Building Inspections Department included foundation plans. Both witnesses testifying for the Petitioner stated that they did not review or prepare any calculations related to the plans and there was no evidence presented that the Building Department had required the calculations to be submitted with the plans. James Lane, who testified on behalf of the Petitioner, acknowledged that there is nothing in the Florida Building Code to prevent an engineer from using the dead weight of the house on the piers and the friction it creates as a method of construction. If the dead load of the house and the friction transfer from the house to the top of the piers is sufficient to address the lateral wind requirements, then straps (also referred to as connectors) would not be necessary to meet the requirements of the Florida Building Code. The main wind force resisting system for the relocation project was the embedment of the foundation piers in the fiberglass reinforced slab and continuous footing in the garage area. Page 6 of the June 25 plans specifies a four-inch minimum monolithic concrete slab with fiberglass reinforcement, using 3,000 PSI concrete, as well as number 4 rebar throughout the footings. There is no requirement that the exact location of rebar splicing be noted on the plans, and the plans are not deficient for failing to provide that information. Moreover, the Florida Building Code requires that a minimum of 2,500 PSI concrete be used. Respondents' design exceeded this requirement. Respondent Irby performed calculations, using the dead load weights in Florida Building Code Appendix A, that showed that the dead load of the existing house sitting on piers with the friction it created was more than sufficient to withstand the required lateral wind load. Mark Spitznagel, P.E., reviewed both the plans and the calculations and visited the construction site. He opined that the calculations showing wind loads could be supported using dead load friction between the house and the piers were correct, and that the Florida Building Code does not require an engineer to explain that no connector, or strap, is required under this circumstance. His testimony is credited. Despite the fact that no connectors were actually required, page six of the June 25 plans included directions for connectors that were used to provide additional support. The Administrative Complaint alleges that the plans do not provide adequate guidance for transfer of horizontal wind loads from the house to the supporting piers and posts or how the supporting piers and posts are to resist imposed loads from the house. The evidence presented at hearing did not indicate what information the Petitioner believed would be sufficient to meet the applicable standard of care. Moreover, the evidence presented supports the conclusion that the metal posts were never intended to transfer lateral wind loads, but were to support vertical loads. The metal posts were part of the existing house and not subject to redesign under the exemption afforded in Florida Building Code Section 101.4.2.3. Shear walls were not considered in the calculations performed by Irby. However, the June 25 plans included shear walls around the garage area, which served to provide extra support over and above what would be required by Irby's calculations. The detail provided on page 6 of the June 25 plans provided a clear load path from the foundation through the shear walls to the upper original structure. The June 25 plans admittedly do not provide wall thickness or metal yield strength for the pipe posts, nor weld attachment, size or thickness for top and bottom plates for the pipe posts. This information is not provided because the pipe posts were part of the original structure and there was no need to redesign them or include them in the foundation plans. The slab beneath the structure was also shown on sheets 1-3 and 6 of the June 25 plans. The slab characteristics are shown in the monolithic footing detail. The upper floor framing members, including the floor joists and the stringers and the I-beam atop the pipe posts were part of the original house design. The house was elevated at its original location, and the stringers, I-beam and pipe posts were part of the original structure. These components did not need to be shown on the plans because of the exemption provided in Florida Building Code Section 101.4.2.3. Respondents did not include main wind force resisting loads for the structure because the Florida Building Code does not require them to be shown for residential, as opposed to commercial, projects. Based on the evidence presented, only component and cladding pressures are required to be shown on the plans, and page 6 of the June 25 plans clearly provides this information. In accordance with Florida Building Code Section 1606.1.7, wind loads for components and cladding were provided showing that the structure was designed to withstand winds up to exposure category D, at 140 miles per hour. The house was actually moved and put in place on the foundation piers three days prior to Hurricane Ivan. Hurricane Ivan was a major hurricane causing extensive damage to the Pensacola area. According to the National Weather Service's Tropical Cyclone Report for the storm, Perdido Key was "essentially leveled." The house relocation project sustained no structural damage in Hurricane Ivan.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint against Respondents be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Campbell, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 A. G. Condon, Jr., Esquire Emmanuel, Sheppard & Condon 30 South Spring Street Post Office Drawer 1271 Pensacola, Florida 32596 Paul J. Martin, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2507 Calloway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Doug Sunshine, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Robert Kegan (Mr. Kegan) committed violations of Chapters 455 and 468, Florida Statutes, as alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department).
Findings Of Fact Mr. Kegan has a Certificate of Licensure from the Florida Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board. He was first licensed in 1994, and, unless he renewed it, the license expired on November 30, 2008. At all times pertinent, he was the Building Code Administrator in Mt. Dora, Florida. Mr. Kegan has never been employed by the City of Leesburg in any capacity. The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of building code administration and inspections pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 455 and 468, Florida Statutes. Linda Renn purchased a home located at 2407 Winona Avenue, Leesburg, Florida, from Mr. Kegan and his wife pursuant to a contract entered into during March 2001. Prior to entering into the contract for sale, Ms. Renn walked through the house with Mr. Kegan. Ms. Renn was aware that it was an older home and testified, "And I felt very comfortable after leaving the home and doing the walk through that even though I was buying an older home with older home obsolescent issues types, but that the renovations were enough that I felt comfortable." Ms. Renn typed up an addendum to the contract prior to execution that stated Mr. Kegan would level a part of the house that required leveling, install an HVAC, install a 220-volt outlet for the clothes dryer, and would accomplish certain other improvements prior to closing on the home. The addendum became part of the contract for sale. Mr. Kegan provided Ms. Renn with his business card indicating that he was the Building Code Administrator in Mt. Dora. Ms. Renn observed Mr. Kegan in a shirt with the Mt. Dora logo upon it, indicating that he was a building official of Mr. Dora, and she visited him in his office in Mt. Dora. There is no question Ms. Renn was aware that he was a building official in Mt. Dora. Ms. Renn claimed that because he was a building official she completely relied on the representations he made to her. However, this assertion lacks credibility because she employed an independent home inspector prior to closing. During the walk-through, the HVAC was resting upon the floor of the home's garage. However, at a time between March 17 and April 29, 2001, Mr. Kegan had the HVAC installed, as he agreed. Subsequently, Ms. Renn discovered this work was accomplished by an unlicensed individual. An inspection of the premises was conducted by Guy Medlock of Benchmark Building Inspections, Inc., on March 29, 2001. A report was issued on March 30, 2001. The report noted that the dwelling was 53 years old and had problems that one would expect from a home that old. Mr. Medlock also noted that the house had a lot of charm. Mr. Medlock's inspection noted that the dwelling required roof repairs and wood rot repairs. It was noted that it was necessary to ameliorate water leaks and correct electrical deficiencies, among other items. There were seven items noted with estimated costs of repair ranging from $50.00 to $150.00. At the time of the inspection, the 220-volt receptacle had not been installed for the washer and dryer. Mr. Medlock further noted that there was no plumbing available for the washer. Because of Mr. Medlock's report, Ms. Renn was well aware of the defects he noted, and she knew this prior to closing. The report stated that he, Mr. Medlock, had discussed the electrical deficiencies with Ms. Renn and suggested that she have an electrician inspect the dwelling. Ms. Renn testified that she gave greater weight to Mr. Kegan's knowledge than to the home inspector that she hired, but there is no basis in the record for her to arrive at that conclusion. On April 29, 2001, the day before closing, Economy Electric of Eustis, Florida, installed a 220-volt line, and Mr. Kegan paid for this work. Economy Electric's principal is Larry New. He is licensed to accomplish electrical work. He performed additional electrical work that was paid for by Ms. Renn, including upgrading wires so that her computer would not be damaged by bad wiring. On April 30, 2001, Mr. and Mrs. Kegan conveyed the premises to Ms. Renn by warranty deed. Subsequently, Ms. Renn concluded that she was not happy with certain facets of the house, and tried to contact Mr. Kegan to have her perceived problems corrected. Mr. Kegan was difficult to contact. In a letter dated November 4, 2001, Ms. Renn filed a 16-page complaint with the Department alleging numerous Florida Building Code violations by Mr. Kegan. She requested that the Department investigate these alleged violations. Sometime immediately prior to January 10, 2002, Ms. Renn had Raymond Anderson of Suter Air Conditioning, Inc., of Leesburg, inspect the HVAC. He made Ms. Renn aware of several city code infractions involving the HVAC. Sometime immediately prior to January 11, 2002, Ms. Renn had someone named James A. Dolan inspect the electrical service at the premises. In a letter dated January 11, 2002, Mr. Dolan stated that there were "national electrical code violations" at the house and that it was his opinion that an electrical inspector or building code official should look into the situation. Ms. Renn believed this to be true. Sometime immediately prior to February 5, 2002, Ms. Renn had the electrical service inspected by Bronson Electric Service, Inc., of Eustis, Florida. In a letter dated February 5, 2002, David E. Bronson reported numerous electrical deficiencies, including an improperly fused air conditioning unit. Mr. Bronson found that the electrical service to the house required an upgrade to 150 amps because the current service was inadequate. He quoted a price of $1,546.00 to accomplish the required modifications. Ms. Renn believed this to be accurate. Ms. Renn employed an inspector from Ocala, Florida, who prepared an inspection report dated May 10, 2002. She learned there were plumbing, electrical, and mechanical problems. She also learned that the roof did not meet building code standards. She noted that for a period of two and one-half years, the HVAC neither cooled nor heated, although it did make some noise. Permits were required for the electrical upgrade and for the air conditioning installation in Ms. Renn's house. No permits were obtained by Mr. Kegan, or his friends, or persons he employed to work on Ms. Renn's house, as were required by the City of Leesburg. By April 18, 2002, all permits had been obtained. Unlicensed persons worked on both the HVAC installation and the electrical upgrade. Work of that sort is lawful only if accomplished by licensed persons. The work accomplished without the appropriate permit and the work done by unlicensed persons, was done under the control of Mr. Kegan. Ultimately, Larry New, a licensed electrician, and Jimmy Harris, a licensed person, fixed all of the problems; got the work inspected; and ensured that all permits were in place. After her complaint to the Department which was drafted November 4, 2001, and submitted in early 2002, Ms. Renn was informed by the Department that she should handle the case locally. Complaints were made by Ms. Renn to the Leesburg Building Department and to many other officials of the Leesburg municipal government. Ultimately, a hearing regarding Mr. Kegan was held before the Lake County Board of Building Examiners (County Board) on August 7, 2003, in Tavares, the county seat of Lake County. Both Leesburg and Mt. Dora are in Lake County. The County Board heard charges against Mr. Kegan's contractor's license for accomplishing work in the trades of roofing, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing using unlicensed workers and failing to obtain permits. It imposed sanctions, including a $1,000 fine. The County Board required Mr. Kegan to do the work he promised, but it was clear that he had already accomplished that work, except for some roofing issues not further identified. The County Board did not address his position as the Building Code Administrator in Mt. Dora, Florida. The action of the County Board was subsequently reversed by a circuit court. Relations between Ms. Renn and Mr. Kegan eventually deteriorated to the point where Ms. Renn had a trespass warning served on Mr. Kegan and sought to have the state attorney prosecute him for trespass. She was not successful in this. She also sued Mr. Kegan civilly, but eventually she voluntarily dismissed the case. None of the actions taken by Ms. Renn, resulted in Mr. Kegan being disciplined. At some point thereafter, Ms. Renn appeared to be satisfied with her house and the retaliation she had visited upon Mr. Kegan. However, while Ms. Renn was "working on legislation" in Tallahassee, Florida, in 2006, she was asked by a Department attorney to reopen the case. Other than the transcript from the County Board hearing of August 7, 2003, nothing had changed. Every problem she had with the house that should have been ameliorated, had been ameliorated. Nevertheless, she did as asked by the Department attorney, and this case was filed. Ms. Renn sent two letters dated April 3, 2006, and one letter dated April 21, 2006, to the Chief Professions Attorney of the Department. The latter missive was a follow-up to the April 3, 2006, communications. The April 3, 2006, communications are considered complaints as contemplated by Subsection 468.619(4), Florida Statutes (2005). There is no evidence of record that Mr. Kegan was informed of the complaint or that he was permitted 30 days to respond as contemplated by Subsection 468.619(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2005). There is no evidence of record that the Department submitted the complaint regarding Mr. Kegan to a probable cause panel for review as contemplated by Subsection 468.619(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2005), within 180 days. There is no evidence to the contrary, either. In summary, the Department has proven that Mr. Kegan, during 2001 and 2002, caused work to be accomplished at 2407 Winona Avenue, Leesburg, Florida, when he owned the house, as well as after he sold the house to Ms. Renn, and this work was done without proper permits and, on occasion, by persons who had no license when a license was required.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation dismiss the Administrative Complaint in the case of Robert Kegan. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry T. Hackney, Esquire Harry Thomas Hackney, P.A. 3900 Lake Center Drive, Suite A1 Mount Dora, Florida 32757 Elizabeth F. Duffy, Esquire Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, Section 4-67 of the Building Regulations, Supplement Number 44, Pasco County Ordinances were in effect and said regulation is the applicable local law. During the applicable time period, the Respondent, ROBERT G. FELLENZ, SR., was registered by the State of Florida as a roofing contractor and held license number RC0027998. Mr. Fellenz is the qualifying agent for Fellenz Roofing Co., Inc. On or about March 24, 1987, the Respondent, FELLENZ entered into a contract with James J. Hoover to re-roof a portion of his residence located at 822 Crestfield Avenue, Holiday, Pasco County, Florida. On April 1, 1987, the Respondent went to the building department in Pasco County to acquire the necessary permit to begin the Hoover project. During the processing of the permit, the Respondent learned that a stop order had been placed on the job. His work crew had disobeyed his direct orders and began work before the permit was obtained. While the Respondent was in the process of having the stop order removed, he learned that his liability insurance had expired. Proof of liability insurance coverage was needed by the Respondent in order for the building permit to be issued by Pasco County on the Hoover project. The Respondent contacted his customer, Mr. Hoover, and explained that he had an insurance coverage problem which he needed to straighten out before work could continue on the roof, and before he could obtain the building permit. Mr. Hoover was not home on the day the re-roofing project was begun and completed by the Respondent. On April 3, 1987, the Respondent obtained liability insurance coverage which went into effect on that date. He began and completed the Hoover re- roofing project on that date. On April 6, 1987, the building department issued the building permit on the Hoover project. A final inspection was never called for by the Respondent. The Respondent has previously been found to have violated Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, in Case No. 69097 Construction Industry Licensing Board.
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a certified roofing contractor in the state of Florida should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Christopher G. Coxon, held a license as a certified roofing contractor, number CGC029604. On or about November 15, 1988, Respondent entered into a written contract with John DeCarlucci to repair a leak in the roof of DeCarlucci's residence at 1717 North Oregon Circle, Tampa, Florida. The contract amount was $400.00, of which Respondent was paid $200.00 by DeCarlucci on November 16, 1988. The Respondent gave DeCarlucci a one-year warranty on his work. The balance owed on the contract was to be paid upon satisfactory completion of the job. Respondent commenced work on the DeCarlucci residence on November 16, 1988. On November 16, 1988 Respondent removed two rows of roofing tile from DeCarlucci's roof while attempting to repair the leak in the roof. The Respondent carried these roofing tiles away from DeCarlucci's residence on November 16, 1988 and has never returned these roofing tiles or provided DeCarlucci with any replacement roofing tiles. On November 23, 1988 the area of the roof that Respondent had attempted to repair leaked. As a result of several telephone calls to Respondent from DeCarlucci, the Respondent returned to the job site on November 26, 1988 and December 7, 1988, and whatever repairs the Respondent attempted on those dates failed in that the roof continues to leak. After December 7, 1988 the Respondent did not return to the job site. DeCarlucci attempted to reach Respondent through the remainder of December 1988 and January and February 1989 by telephone and a certified letter but to no avail. As a result of DeCarlucci filing a complaint with the City of Tampa Building Department on January 5, 1989, the job site was inspected by the construction inspector for the building department and the project cited for violation of the building code. Respondent was notified of the complaint and building code violation. The Respondent was given until February 14, 1989 to correct the leakage and to replace the missing roofing tiles. As a result of Respondent's failure to take any corrective action toward repairing the roof or replacing the missing roofing tiles, the DeCarlucci complaint was filed with the City of Tampa Unified Construction Trades Board for disciplinary action. The Respondent subsequently returned the $200.00 to DeCarlucci that he had received from DeCarlucci on the contract price on November 16, 1988. In its complaint against the Respondent the City of Tampa Unified Construction Trades Board alleged that Respondent's failure to properly repair the roof was a violation of Section 101.1-Covering, Standard for the Installation to Roof Coverings, 1985, edition, Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc., and Section 25-101(5)(10) and (22) Grounds for Disciplinary Action, Penalties, City of Tampa, Building and Construction Regulations. Respondent was duly notified of the hearing to be held on April 4, 1989 on the allegations. At the hearing on April 4, 1989 the Respondent was found to have violated those sections set forth in Finding of Fact 13 and by unanimous decision the Board ordered Respondent to cease all construction activity and revoked the Respondent's permitting privilege. At no time material to this proceeding, has the Respondent made restitution to DeCarlucci for the missing roofing tiles or the cost of labor and materials for installing such tiles. While Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, provides for the assessment of costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of a case, there was no evidence presented by the Department as to the amount of those costs.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and disciplinary guidelines set forth in Rule 21E-17.001, Florida Administrative Code, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent, Christopher G. Coxon guilty of violation of Section 489.129(1)(d)(i) and (m), Florida Statutes, and for such violation revoke his license as a certified roofing contractor. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of January, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120-59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in the case. Rulings on Proposed Finding of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed findings of fact: 4-6(1); 7-8(2); 9-10(3); 11(4); 13-16(5); 17-18(3); 19(6); 20-21(7); 22-23(8); 24-26(9); 27 28(10); 29-30(11); 31(12); 32(16); 33(13); 34(14); and 35- 36(15). Proposed findings of fact 1-3 are covered in the Preliminary Statement. Proposed finding of fact 12 is rejected as not being supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. See proposed findings of fact 20 and 21 and finding of fact 7. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent The Respondent did not submit any proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig M. Dickinson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Christopher Coxon 554 Carson Drive Tampa, FL 33615 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
