The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not Respondent engaged in acts and/or conduct, which will be set forth hereinafter in detail, in violation of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, as alleged by Petitioner in its Administrative Complaints filed herein dated December 1, 1981, and March 8, 1982. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant:
Findings Of Fact By its Administrative Complaints filed herein, Petitioner charges Respondent with three counts of deliberately disregarding the applicable building code, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), presently codified as Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1981); with violation of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1979), in that he abandoned a construction project; with violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1979), presently codified as Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1981), in that he is guilty of fraud or deceit or misconduct in the practice of contracting; with violation of Section 489.129(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1979), presently codified as Section 489.129(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1981), to wit: Section 455.227(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1979) in that he is guilty of a misleading, deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representation in the practice of contracting; with violation of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, to wit: Section 489.117(2), Florida Statutes (1979), in that he was engaging in the practice of contracting in a county where he was not properly registered; with violation of Section 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes (979), presently codified as Section 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1981), in that he aided or abetted an unlicensed person to evade the provisions of the contracting license law; with violation of Section 489.129(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1979), presently codified as Section 489.129(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1981), in that he knowingly combined or conspired with an unlicensed person and allowed his registration to be used by an unlicensed person with the intent to evade the provisions of the contracting license law; with violation of Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1979), presently codified as Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1981), in that he acted in the capacity of a contractor in a name other than as registered; with violation of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1979), presently codified as Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1981), to wit: Sections 489.119(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (1979), in that he failed to properly qualify a company under which he was doing business. In support of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint filed in Case No. 82-1554, Petitioner presented the testimony of Newton B. Webb and Lewis Abbott, and introduced three (3) exhibits into evidence. Respondent testified on his own behalf and introduced no exhibits. In support of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint filed in Case No. 82-1645, Petitioner presented the testimony of Gladys Durden, Carolyn Thomas, and Cory M. Henriksen and introduced four (4) exhibits. Respondent testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of Abe Anderson. Respondent introduced one (1) exhibit. Respondent is a registered residential contractor having been issued license No. RR0022063. That license was initially issued during 1976 and is current through calendar year 1983. On February 17, 1983, (Case No. 82-1554), Respondent entered into a contract with Newton B. and Flora Mae Webb to construct a fireplace in their trailer for the sum of $1,725. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) The contract was on a letterhead indicating that the Respondent was doing business as James Construction Company. The fireplace was subsequently constructed by the Respondent and payment was made in full. (Stipulation of counsel, TR p. 10). Respondent did not obtain a building permit to construct the fireplace for the Webbs. The Southern Standard Building Code, which is the building code that was being enforced in Wakulla County, Florida, during times material when the fireplace for the Webbs was being constructed, contains a provision which requires that a permit be obtained for the construction of a fireplace. (TR p. 16; Section 106.1, Southern Standard Building Code.) Respondent is not licensed to engage in the practice of contracting in Wakulla County. The site of the Webb home, where the Respondent constructed the fireplace in question, is in Wakulla County. Respondent has not qualified James Construction Company as the entity through which he would engage in the practice of contracting in Wakulla County. Following completion of the fireplace for the Webbs, Mr. Webb complained that the fireplace was improperly constructed in that smoke poured from the hearth in a profuse manner. Mr. Webb complained that his fire detection alarm was constantly triggered by the smoke pouring out of the chimney. Respondent returned to the Webbs' residence and checked the fireplace and its operation on at least three occasions. On the fourth occasion, Respondent returned to the Webb residence with his counsel and an official from the City of Apalachicola, Florida. A small fire with paper was started and Respondent demonstrated to the Webbs, his attorney, and the building official how the damper in the fireplace operated and what Mr. Webb was doing wrong in the operation of the damper. Respondent gave Mr. Webb and those in attendance a brief demonstration in the proper and correct manner in which the damper should be opened so that the chimney vented properly. During that demonstration, the chimney did not smoke. During an inspection by the building official, Lewis Abbott, the following violations of the Southern Standard Building Code were observed: The chimney did not extend three feet above the roof of the residence. The foundation of the fireplace did not comport with the minimum requirements of the Southern Standard Building Code. The liner between the wall and the flue of the chimney was approximately 3-1/2 inches, whereas the minimum thickness required by the Southern Standard Building Code is 8 inches. A smoke chamber was not installed. The outside chimney was constructed against a combustible wall and the one-inch minimum clearance requirement was not met. The hearth was of insufficient size and was not supported sufficiently by a foundation that meets the minimum requirements of the Southern Standard Building Code. (TR p. 17) It is found that these conditions existed at the Webb residence at the time of Inspector Abbott's inspection. On September 30, 1979, (Case No. 82-1645), Respondent entered into a contract with Gladys M. Durden to rehabilitate her residence for the sum of $12,000. (Stipulation of counsel and TR p. 65). Respondent agreed inter alia, to repair the plumbing; install new flooring; build an extra room; install a new kitchen sink and cabinet; install vinyl floors as needed; and replace several windows and doors. According to Ms. Durden and Carolyn Thomas, Manager of the Federal Block Grant Program, the principal items which the Respondent failed to complete and/or correct centered around problems with the plumbing and his failure to install new flooring in the bathroom. Payment for the construction to the Durden residence was made by draws from the Block Grant Program and Respondent received payment based on two-party checks, which required, for negotiation, that both payees (Respondent and the homeowner-- Gladys Durden) sign the check. At the time Respondent presented the check representing final payment for construction to the Durden residence, Ms. Durden refused to sign it based on her claim that Respondent had failed to complete all of the work as contracted. Respondent presented the check for payment, which was honored, at the local bank in Apalachicola even though it was not endorsed by Ms. Durden. Prior to receiving payment for the final phase of the work to the Durden residence, Respondent had the construction on the Durden residence checked by the local building officials and a certificate of occupancy was issued which enabled Respondent to receive final payment for the Durden project from the City of Apalachicola's Block Grant Program. After negotiating the check representing the final payment for construction work done to the Durden residence, Respondent did not return to the site despite notification from the City Attorney of Apalachicola, the Block Grant Administrator, Carolyn Thomas, and phone messages received from Ms. Durden. Respondent encountered numerous problems while in the construction phase on the Durden residence. Ms. Durden had ten (10) children living in her home at the time construction was ongoing and, as a result, Respondent had to redo several phases of the work which had been previously done days earlier based on the number of residents living in the Durden home. Respondent did not return to the Durden residence based on his fear that Ms. Durden believed in "voodoo" and his position that he had completed all that was required by him pursuant to the contract. Respondent utilized the services of a plumber, Abe Anderson, to complete the plumbing and flooring phase of the Durden project. Abe Anderson installed a new floor, consisting of 1/2 inch plywood, and a new vinyl covering to the bathroom floor of the Durden residence in all areas except where the bath tub sat in the bathroom. When Respondent left the Durden project the plumbing operated properly. (Testimony of Respondent, Anderson, and Building Inspector Cory M. Henriksen.) Respondent acknowledged that he did not, in all respects, comply with the Southern Standard Building Code in his construction of the fireplace for the Webbs. However, Respondent contends that the code provisions are incorrect and that in any event he has been constructing chimneys in excess of twenty (20) years and that all other builders in the area construct chimneys in the same manner as he. In support of his position in this regard, Respondent points to the fact that most of the chimneys in the area do not satisfy the three-feet- height criteria and that various other sections of the Southern Standard Building Code, which he is charged with violating, are either not required or not followed. Respondent acknowledges the fact, and it is found herein, that he is not registered to engage in contracting in Wakulla County, and that he has not qualified James Construction Company as the entity through which he is conducting his contracting business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license as a registered residential contractor (License No. RR0022063) be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be assessed an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500). RECOMMENDED this 26th day of July, 1983, 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 July, 1983.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Respondent was licensed as a certified building contractor holding license number CB CO24185. On or about March 14, 1983, Respondent, doing business as Duran Construction Co., contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Butler of San Mateo, Florida, to construct a room addition and freestanding carport at their residence for $6,825. Subsequently, Respondent constructed an aluminum "roof- over" by rate contract for an additional $2,000. Respondent completed the freestanding carport and aluminum roof-over projects without apparent difficulty. However, he began the room addition without obtaining the required building permit from Putnam County. 1/ He obtained an after-the-fact permit about April 21, 1983, but was issued a "correction notice" by the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department on April 22, 1983, ordering all work to cease until the cited deficiencies were corrected. 2/ The chief building inspector arranged to meet Respondent on April 214, 1983, at the construction site. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the corrective measures required on the partially completed room addition. Respondent did not attend this meeting and did no further work on the project. His failure to attend the meeting or continue work was not explained to either the building officials or the property owner. At the time Respondent discontinued work, he had been paid $4,550 on a written contract which covered the finished carport as well as the incomplete room addition. He had also been paid $2,000 for the finished roof-over project which was the subject of an oral contract. Respondent would have been entitled to an additional $2,275 on the written contract had he completed the room addition. By letter of May 6, 1983, the Butlers' attorney advised Respondent that he would initiate legal action against him unless the project was completed by May 13, 1983. However, Mr. Butler had already applied to the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department for reissuance of the permit to himself in place of Respondent. The permit was reissued to Butler on May 6, 1983 and the project was completed without Respondent's further involvement.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(d), F.S., and suspending his contractors license for a period of four months. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of November, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 323301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 1984. 1/ A building permit must be obtained prior to construction. Section 106.1(a), Putnam County Building Code (PCBC). The PCBC is the Southern Standard Building Code adopted by Putnam County Ordinance 83-2. 2/ See Section 103.2, PCBC. The cited deficiencies included insufficient girder support for floor joists and inadequate roof framing with respect to rafters and beam construction. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Dean Arturo Duran 11680 N.W. 15th Lane Ocala, Florida 32675 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent willfully violated local building codes and abandoned a job.
Findings Of Fact David Cobb is a registered general and registered roofing contractor with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The job in question was done in Gainesville, Florida. Gainesville has a local building code, having adopted the Southern Standard Building Code, but does not have a local competing board. Cobb entered into a contract with John Larramore for a room addition to Larramore's home. Larramore paid Cobb a total of $2,475.84 on the job which was priced as $4,080.24, an amount which included the price of floor covering which both parties acknowledged would be purchased by Larramore and deducted from the monies paid Cobb. Cobb began work on the project. Larramore was not happy with the craftsmanship on the job, which was overseen by Cobb's foreman. Eventually, Larramore contacted a friend who was a contractor. This friend indicated to Larramore that the job should be inspected by the building inspectors of Gainesville, and Larramore contacted the Building Department of Gainesville. Pending inspection by the Department, Larramore told Cobb to stop work until he was contacted again. The chief building official, Leslie Davis, inspected the Larramore job on May 4, 1979. He found several violations of the local building code. Davis was accompanied by the Board's investigator, Herman Cherry. Davis contacted Cobb and advised him to correct the code violations. Davis sent Cobb a letter on May 10, 1979, outlining the violations and giving Cobb 14 days to correct these violations. See Exhibit 5. Cobb tried to contact Larramore by telephone without success concerning correction and completion of the job. Eventually, Cobb wrote Larramore an undated letter, Exhibit 4, which was written after the inspection by Davis and Cherry on May 4, 1979. Larramore was uncertain of the date he received the letter but did acknowledge it was after the Davis/Cherry inspection. Larramore did not contact Cobb after he received Cobb's letter. Instead, he contracted with another contractor to complete the job. This contractor began work on May 17, 1979.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board take no action against David Cobb. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael E. Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Mr. David Cobb Post Office Box 1306 16146 James Couzens Freeway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Detroit, Michigan 48221
The Issue Whether Respondent, who is licensed as a Plans Examiner, a Building Inspector, and a Building Code Administrator, committed the offenses alleged in the three-count Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties if any that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida with the responsibility to regulate Building Code Administrators and Inspectors pursuant to Section 20.165, Chapter 455, and Part XII of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held licenses as a Standard Plans Examiner in Building and Mechanical; a Standard Inspector in Building and Mechanical; and a Building Code Administrator. Section 468.603(1), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: Building code administrator" or "building official" means any of those employees of municipal or county governments with building construction regulation responsibilities who are charged with the responsibility for direct regulatory administration or supervision of plan review, enforcement, or inspection of building construction, erection, repair, addition, remodeling, demolition, or alteration projects that require permitting indicating compliance with building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, gas, fire prevention, energy, accessibility, and other construction codes as required by state law or municipal or county ordinance. This term is synonymous with "building official" as used in the administrative chapter of the Standard Building Code and the South Florida Building Code. . . . Section 468.603(2), Florida Statutes, provides the following definition relevant to this proceeding: (2) "Building code inspector" means any of those employees of local governments or state agencies with building construction regulation responsibilities who themselves conduct inspections of building construction, erection, repair, addition, or alteration projects that require permitting indicating compliance with building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, gas, fire prevention, energy, accessibility, and other construction codes as required by state law or municipal or county ordinance. Section 468.603(6), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: "Categories of building code inspectors" include the following: "Building inspector" means a person who is qualified to inspect and determine that buildings and structures are constructed in accordance with the provisions of the governing building codes and state accessibility laws. * * * (e) "Mechanical inspector" means a person who is qualified to inspect and determine that the mechanical installations and systems for buildings and structures are in compliance with the provisions of the governing mechanical code. Section 468.603(7), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: "Plans examiner" means a person who is qualified to determine that plans submitted for purposes of obtaining building and other permits comply with the applicable building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, gas, fire prevention, energy, accessibility, and other applicable construction codes. Categories of plans examiners include: (a) Building plans examiner. * * * (c) Mechanical plans examiner. Section 468.603(7), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: "Building code enforcement official" or "enforcement official" means a licensed building code administrator, building code inspector, or plans examiner. Ramon Melendez, doing business as R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., was not licensed as a construction contractor in Florida at any time relevant to this proceeding. Mr. Melendez was not individually licensed as a construction contractor in Florida at any time relevant to this proceeding. R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., was not qualified as a construction business by any certified or registered contractor in Florida at any time relevant to this proceeding. On or about March 20, 1998, Mr. Melendez, doing business as R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., contracted with Pedro Camacho to re-roof the residence located at 3961 N.W. 170th Street, Miami, Florida, for the sum of $3,000. Mr. Camacho paid Mr. Melendez the agreed sum in cash based on the contract dated March 20, 1998. On or about June 3, 1998, Mr. Melendez, doing business as R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., contracted with Santos Valentin to re- roof the residence located at 4412 N.W. 185th Street, Opa Locka, Florida, for the sum of $2,800. Mr. Valentin paid R.E.M. Roofing, Inc. the sum of $1,400 on June 8, 1998. Mr. Valentin paid Mr. Melendez the additional sum of $800 on June 10, 1998. Both payments, which were by check, were for the roofing work described in the contract dated June 3, 1998. On April 6, 1998, Respondent applied for and obtained a permit for the Camacho roofing work. This permit application was submitted to the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Planning Development and Regulation. Respondent signed the permit application as “the contractor” and inserted his contractor license number and social security number on the application. The application submitted by Respondent on April 6, 1998, was a fraudulent sham. At no time was Respondent the contractor for the Camacho roofing work. Respondent’s action in obtaining the building permit aided and abetted an unlicensed contractor to engage in contracting. On June 8, 1998, Respondent applied for and obtained a permit for the Valentin roofing work. This permit application was submitted to the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Planning Development and Regulation. Respondent signed the permit application as “the contractor” and inserted his contractor license number and social security number on the application. The application submitted by Respondent on June 8, 1998, was a fraudulent sham. At no time was Respondent the contractor for the Valentin roofing work. Respondent’s action in obtaining the building permit aided and abetted an unlicensed contractor to engage in contracting. Miami-Dade County Compliance Investigator Daniel Vuelta filed criminal charges against Respondent in two separate criminal cases. One case was for his involvement in the Camacho roofing project and the other was for his involvement in the Valentin roofing projects. These cases were brought in Miami- Dade County Court and assigned case numbers M99-57926 and M99- 57931. In each case, Respondent was charged with one count of Unlawful Application for Building Permit and one count of Aiding and Abetting an Unlicensed Contractor. All charges were first- degree misdemeanors. On February 22, 2001, Respondent entered into a plea agreement to resolve those criminal charges. Respondent entered a plea of guilty to each of the two counts in Case M99-57931, and he was subsequently adjudicated guilty of each count. As part of the plea agreement, the State agreed to nolle pross Case M99-57926. The crimes to which Respondent entered a guilty plea involved fraudulent building permits and, consequently, were directly related to building code enforcement. Petitioner’s investigative costs for this case, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, were $427.29.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the offenses alleged in Counts I, II, and III. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order revoke Respondent’s licensure and impose an administrative fine against him in the amount of $3,000. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner order Respondent to pay its investigative costs, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, in the amount of $427.29. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 2005.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the administrative complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is now, and has been since 1982, a roofing contractor licensed to practice in the State of Florida. He holds license number RC 0041149. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been the licensed qualifying agent for Reinforcement Roofing and Painting Company (Reinforcement). On or about November 29, 1987, Reinforcement, through Respondent, entered into a written contract with Wayne Leidecker in which it agreed, for $4,655.00, excluding permit fees and taxes, to replace the roof on Leidecker's residence, located at 18280 S.W. 202nd Street in Miami, Florida. Shortly thereafter, Reinforcement obtained a permit from the Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department to perform the work specified in the contract. It then proceeded to begin work on the project. The felt underlayer of the new roof was improperly installed. Reinforcement laid the shingles over this improperly installed felt underlayer without first calling for a tin cap/anchor sheet inspection, in willful violation of the local building code. The result was a roof having a "wavy" appearance. To make matters worse, some of the shingles were not properly fastened to the roof deck. Furthermore, the metal eaves and gable drips were installed too close to the facie in violation of the local building code. The work on the Leidecker project, which was performed under the supervision of Respondent, was completed in January, 1988. The job, however, having been done in an incompetent manner, failed its final inspection. Efforts were subsequently made by Reinforcement, under the direction of Respondent, to correct the foregoing problems. These efforts were inadequate and unsuccessful. Consequently, the project was still unable to pass a final inspection. Leidecker was growing increasingly impatient. In the latter part of 1988, he had Charles H. Walton, the Vice-President of Bob Hilson & Company, Inc., examine the roof. Based upon his examination, Walton concluded, in a written report which he gave Leidecker, that "[d]ue to all of the above deficiencies, South Florida Building Code infractions and the waviness of the shingles, the only way that I can truthfully say that this roof can be properly corrected is to remove this existing shingle roof entirely to a smooth workable surface and reinstall a new 3-tab, 20 year type fungus resistant fiberglass shingle roof system, that meets all of the South Florida Building Code specifications and manufacturers' requirements." This was consistent with what Leidecker had been told by the building inspectors who had previously inspected the roof. Accordingly, after receiving Walton's report, Leidecker refused to allow Reinforcement to do any further patchwork on the roof. He expected Reinforcement to take the removal and reinstallation measures Walton had recommended in his written report. He would accept nothing less. By letter dated July 14, 1989, Respondent was informed that a formal hearing would be held before the Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board (CTQB) on the following four charges filed against him relating to the Leidecker project: Between November 28, 1987 and January 31, 1989, Reinforcement Roofing & Painting, Co., and/or Louis Gordon as the Qualifying Agent there for as a Roofing and Painting Contractor did unlawfully violate Section 3401.4(c) of the South Florida Building Code (SFBC) by failing to obtain the final roofing inspection required at a roofing job located at 18280 S.W. 202nd Street Miami, Dade County, Florida; said violation evidencing a failure to maintain the affirmative condition of honesty, integrity and good character as required for the issuance of a certificate of competency under Section 10-16(a) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. Between November 28, 1987 and January 31, 1989, Reinforcement Roofing & Painting, Co., and/or Louis Gordon as the Qualifying Agent there for as a Roofing and Painting Contractor did unlawfully violate Section 3403.3(h)(2) of the South Florida Building Code (SFBC) by failing to imbed sheets of roofing felt without wrinkles or buckles as required at a roofing job located at 18280 S.W. 202nd Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida; said violation evidencing a failure to maintain the affirmative condition of honesty, integrity and good character as required for the issuance of a certificate of competency under Section 10-16(a) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. Between November 28, 1987 and January 31, 1989, Reinforcement Roofing & Painting, Co., and/or Louis Gordon as the Qualifying Agent there for as a Roofing and Painting Contractor did unlawfully violate Section 3408.3(c) of the South Florida Building Code (SFBC) by failing to install metal eave and/or gable drips so the bottom of said metal drips did not touch facie and did [not] have the minimum of a one-half inch clearance from the structure as required at a roofing job located at 18280 S.W. 202nd Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida; said violation evidencing a failure to maintain the affirmative condition of honesty, integrity and good character as required for the issuance of a certificate of competency under Section 10-16(a) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. Between November 28, 1987 and January 31, 1989, Reinforcement Roofing & Painting, Co., and/or Louis Gordon as the Qualifying Agent there for as a Roofing and Painting Contractor did unlawfully violate Section 10-22(a) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, in that they did fail to fulfill their contractual obligation to honor a six (6) year warranty in connection with roofing work done on the residence located at 18280 S.W. 202nd Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. The hearing on these charges was held as scheduled on August 10, 1989. The CTQB found Respondent guilty of Charges 1, 2 and 3 and not guilty of Charge The following penalties were imposed: Charge 1- six-month suspension of Respondent's personal and business certificates and a fine of $1,000.00; Charge 2- six-month suspension of Respondent's personal and business certificates and a fine of $250.00; and Charge 3- official letter of reprimand and a fine of $250.00. In addition, he was directed to pay $257.00 in administrative costs. On October 12, 1989, Respondent made another appearance before the CTQB. He made a request that the foregoing penalties be reduced. His request was granted. The CTQB "lifted" his suspension, but with the caveat that if he did not timely pay his fines the suspension would be reinstated. Respondent failed to make timely payment. As a result, his suspension was reinstated. Neither Reinforcement, nor Respondent in his individual capacity, has yet to take the measures necessary to correct the problems with the Leidecker roof that were caused by the shoddy work done under Respondent's inadequate supervision. Respondent has been disciplined on two separate, prior occasions by the Construction Industry Licensing Board for conduct unrelated to that which is the subject of the charges filed against him in the instant case. On February 12, 1986, the Board issued a final order in Case No. 0053301 imposing a $250.00 administrative fine upon Respondent. On June 16, 1988, in another case, Case No. 81135, the Board fined Respondent $500.00 for violating the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations of Section 489.129, Florida Statutes, charged in the instant amended administrative complaint and suspending Respondent's license for a period one year and imposing upon him a fine in the amount of $3,500.00 for having committed these violations. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of September, 1990. STUART M. LERNER 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 27th day of September, 1990.
