Findings Of Fact Respondent, Eugene Amrhein, is a certified roofing contractor, license number CC C020238, and was the qualifying agent for Knight Roofing, Inc. at all times relevant to these cases. On or about December 16, 1982, Respondent, conducting business through Knight Roofing Inc., contracted with Evelyn Nickerson for reroofing of a home at 707 N.E. 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida for a contract price of $1,485. She gave Respondent a downpayment of $785, and upon completion of the project paid the balance of $700. Respondent commenced work on the project without obtaining a permit, as required by Section 301.1(k), South Florida Building Code. Respondent also failed to obtain an inspection as required by Section 305.2(a), of this code. On or about March 10, 1981, Respondent conducting business through Knight Roofing, Inc., contracted with Judevilla Geria for the rebuilding of an existing flat tile roof for a contract price of $4,100. Respondent did not obtain the required building permit, in violation of Section 301.1(k), South Florida Building Code. Respondent did not perform the work contracted in that only a coat of paint was applied. He failed to rebuild the existing roof by recementing each tile, replacing rotten lumber, soffitt and fascia, nor did he replace approximately 50 tiles as required by the contract. However, Respondent has honored his warranty to Geria to the extent of repairing four leaks that developed subsequent to the work. On or about June 29, 1982 Respondent contracted with Golda Oxenberg to waterproof a roof at 3253 Foxcroft Road, Miramar, Florida. The contract price was $1,000. The project was completed and Respondent was paid in full. The Respondent violated Section 301.1(k), South Florida Building Code by failing to obtain a permit for this project. On or about August 22, 1983, Knight Roofing Inc., contracted with Joseph Castellano to repair the roof of a home at 1215 1st Street, Indian Rocks Beach, Florida. The contract price was $600, and included a two-year warranty. At no time was a licensed roofer present at the job site. David Ness, then an unlicensed individual, contracted for the work, performed the work, and received the payments. At no time did the Respondent supervise the work on the Castellano home. After completion, the roof began to leak. Respondent has not repaired the leak, despite his warranty. Respondent violated Section 108.2(d), Standard Building Code (adopted by Indian Rocks Beach Ordinance 291) by failing to obtain required inspections. However, no evidence was presented to show that Respondent violated Section 108.2(b), Standard Building Code, since a permit was obtained. Respondent has moved, but failed to notify the Construction Board of his new address as required by Rule 21E- 15.07, F.A.C. On March 7, 1984, Respondent contracted with Ralph Huff for roofing work at 3210 N.E. 9th Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida. The contract price was $5,725, and the work was completed. Respondent admitted at hearing that he failed to follow up on his warranty agreement. Respondent did not violate Section 305.2(a), South Florida Building Code since a final inspection was obtained on October 25, 1984.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's license. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of June, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 25th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William F. Beggs, Esquire BEGGS and VECCHIO 3012 East Commercial Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville Florida 32202
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.
Findings Of Fact Daniel Fowler, a general contractor licensed in Florida (T. 289), qualified Raben-Pastal, A Joint Venture, under license No. CG CA15439 on August 15, 1980, and renewed the license for the period 1981 to 1983. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. At all pertinent times, he was employed as a construction superintendent for Raben-Pastal, at a residential development in the City of Coconut Creek known as The Hammocks at Coconut Creek, Phase II (The Hammocks), and answered to Paul Pariser, president both of Raben Builders and of Pastal Construction, Inc., and himself a general contractor licensed in Florida. Before construction began, Raben-Pastal secured a building permit for a two- story building (No. 280-81), Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, on February 19, 1981, and for a four-story building (No. 344-81), Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, on March 4, 1981. Respondent personally signed the applications, listing certificate of competency No. CG CA15439 on each. PLANS CHANGE After work had begun, Raben-Pastal decided on a change of floor plan for the two-story building. Their architect, Donald Bryan, approached James Cowley, Director of Planning and Zoning, and building official for the City of Coconut Creek. Mr. Bryan offered the building official an amended floor plan, but, after discussing it, the two men agreed that new elevations were involved as well as plumbing location changes, which should be reflected on additional drawings. Thereafter, Mr. Bryan "went back and submitted an entirely new set of working drawings and all of the architectural sheets to reflect" (T. 246) the changes. Eight or nine of the twelve pages in the amended application differed from the original application. The only structural change was in the balcony areas. (T. 238.) At the time the change of plans application was submitted on February 27, 1981, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, work on the two-story building had progressed through completion of the foundation. STOP WORK ORDER ENTERED On March 2, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote and had delivered by hand a letter to "Daniel Fowler, Raben/Pastal" in which he stated: Please be advised that until such time that the Revised Plans have been reviewed and approved, permit #280-81 is suspended and that the previously approved plans are to be considered disapproved. All work on the building shall cease immediately. A notice to this effect will be attached to the permit board as of this date. While in all probability a new permit fee will not be necessary the standard plan examination fee shall be required prior to the resumption of work. For your reference, the following are the applicable South Florida Building Code 1/ Sections, 302.1(E), 302.4(H), 303.4 and 304.4 (A)(B). Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. The following day, Mr. Pariser wrote Mr. Cowley, as follows: In response to your letter of March 2nd, it is our opinion that stopping work on the building under code numbers 301.3, 302.3, 303.4 and 304.4 is invalid. We have contacted both our architect and structural engineer and confirmed that the 2 story revised plans have no revisions to the super structure. Since for the next 3 weeks we are doing nothing but super structure work, and certainly within that time frame, you will have had enough time to process the revised plans, we will continue to build the building as per permit #280-81 with our independent inspector making inspections per the South Florida Building Code requirements. . . Respondent's Exhibit No. 16. Mr. Pariser wrote Mr. Cowley a second letter on March 3, 1981, to the same general effect enclosing a letter signed by the building's architect and an engineer, which "represent[ed] that there are no structural changes outside of a minor slab configuration." Respondent's Exhibit No. 17. On March 4, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote Mr. Pariser, with a copy to Mr. Fowler, as follows: I am in receipt of your letter of March 3, 1981, wherein you stated the stop work order issued pursuant to my letter of March 2, 1981 was invalid. My position, of course, is that my action was not only valid, but in fact mandated by code. After meeting with your architect, Mr. Bryan, I propose the following solution. The stop work order will remain in effect for Construction only, i.e. steel re-inforcement, concrete, etc. could not be placed. Site work could continue i.e. soil preparation, filling, compacting, placing of batter boards, excavation for footings and forming. If the above meets with your approval, please acknowledge. Respondent's Exhibit No. 15. To this, Mr. Pariser responded the following day with this letter: In response to your letter of March 4th, the construction that we are proceeding with is just the very 1st floor lift of columns. That lift of columns is the same as shown on the plans for permit #280-81. There is no reason why you could not look at the set of plans you now have in your office for permit #280-81 and make a determination on the number of bars, sizing and location of same. I believe there is a total of 23 columns. Independent of this, you have already received a letter from our architect and an independent engineer stating that these columns will remain the same and you will have an independent engineer's inspection signed off on the permit card. My sincere appreciation for your understanding and return of this letter with your signature below acknowledging acceptance. If however, there is any further harassment in this matter, we will have no alternative but to invoke Chapter 71-575 Section 4 a of the South Florida Building Code, which states in part. . ."if any elected or appointed officials prohibit by any means, directly or indirectly, the use of any materials, types of construction and methods of design authorized by the code or alternate materials, types of construction and methods of design approved by the provisions of the Code, then the elected or appointed official may be removed from office for nonfeasance, misfeasance or malfeasance in office". . .Respondent's Exhibit No. 19. On March 10, 1981, the amended plans were approved. After still further correspondence, Mr. Cowley wrote Mr. Pariser, with a copy to Mr. Fowler, advising that "receipt of the required $200.00 Plan Exam Fee. . .re[s]cinded the suspension of Permit #280-81," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, effective April 7, 1981. STOP WORK ORDER VIOLATED By the time the stop work order was rescinded, the two-story building's superstructure was finished. No work accomplished before April 7, 1981, differed from that called for in the original plans. Through respondent and others, Raben-Pastal placed steel-reinforced concrete and performed other work in violation of the stop work order, without testing the validity of the order before the Board of Rules and Appeals or by initiating mandamus or other judicial proceedings. Respondent directed and participated in this work deliberately and with awareness that a stop work order was outstanding. At no time between March 2, 1981, and April 7, 1981, was anybody aware of the design defects that later came to light. STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS In late April of 1981, Coconut Creek's Mr. Cowley learned of cracking in concrete slabs around columns in both the two-story and the four-story buildings. By this time, roof slabs on both buildings had been poured, but neither ground slab had been finished. On the city's behalf, Mr. Cowley engaged D. E. Britt & Associates, consulting engineers, to examine the buildings. After Duncan Britt telephoned to say the buildings should be shored, Mr. Cowley orally advised respondent Fowler that shoring was necessary, on May 6 or 7, 1981. SHORING ORDERED On May 7, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote and caused to be delivered by hand to Paul Pariser a letter in which he stated: I have just received instructions from Mr. Britt of D. E. Britt and Associates to the effect that a minimum of four shores must be placed around ALL columns in the above referenced buildings. Said shores shall be placed immediately and remain in place until such time that the structural adequacy evaluation has been completed. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10. A copy of this letter reached Mr. Fowler on May 8, 1981. On May 11, 1981, Mr. Pariser replied: I am in receipt of your letter of May 7, 1981, please be advised that even though Raben-Pastal is respecting your wishes as to the reshoring, we would like to know specifically by what basis in South Florida building code you are requesting same. Also, what is the time frame which we can expect to have this lifted? Respondent's Exhibit No. 6. In a separate letter dated May 11, 1981, Mr. Pariser wrote Mr. Cowley: I take exception to the fact that you have predetermined that there are structural deficiencies. According to Mr. Bromley, our structural engineer, both buildings, as they stand now, are structurally sound. We, at Raben-Pastal, will stop work on anything that is related to column and plate slabs until the Britt analysis has been submitted. Respondent's Exhibit No. 8. Also on May 11, 1982, in response to a mailgram from respondent Fowler, Mr. Cowley wrote respondent to the effect that his order requiring shores around columns should not be construed as a stop work order. Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. A mailgram confirmation stamped received May 12, 1981, states, over respondent's name: Per your instructions requiring 4 post shores to be placed around our columns on building C-46 and C-47, Raben-Pastal will immediately commence this remedial work. Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. During this period, the engineers advising Raben-Pastal continued to believe that both buildings were sound and this was communicated to Messrs. Fowler and Pariser. FIRST-STORY CEILING SLAB ESSENTIALLY UNSHORED Mr. Cowley, Duncan Britt, Ron Thomas, and Henry A. Luten, Britt's chief engineer, among others, visited the site of the four-story building on May 14, 1981. The building was 240-feet long and had more than 30 columns; the slab on grade had still not been poured. The upper floors had been shored, possibly in the process of flying the forms, but there were no more than two or three shores in place underneath the lowest slab then poured, i.e., the first-story ceiling. If done properly, shoring would have begun at ground level with shores placed on the concrete pads around the columns; work would have progressed upward floor by floor; and no more than two or three shores a day, on average, would have been dislodged by the contraction and expansion of concrete in response to temperature changes. Shoring upper floors without shoring the bottom floor may have enhanced rather than diminished the risk that the building would fall. On May 15, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote respondent Fowler, as follows: Yesterday, May 14, Mr. Britt, Mr. Ludin [sic], Mr. Thomas and I made an inspection of the above referenced buildings. We were appal[l]ed to find that our reshoring instructions had not been carried out on the ground floor of the four story building, permit number 344-81. Considering that a potentially hazardous situation exists, you leave me no choice but to issue the following order. YOU SHALL IMMEDIATELY SHORE THE GROUND AND SECOND FLOOR COLUMNS IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: TWO (2) SHORES ON EACH SIDE AND ONE (1) ON EACH END. ALL SHORES ARE TO BE WEDGED TIGHTLY IN PLACE. GROUND FLOOR SHORES ARE TO BARE [sic] ON FOUNDATION. Failure to comply will result in a Stop Work Order which will remain in effect until such time the engineer of record, Mr. Arthur Bromley, determines what measures are required to correct the existing structural deficiencies. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. To this letter Mr. Fowler replied, also on May 15, 1981: Please be advised pursuant to your letter of today, that to the best of my knowledge we proceeded to a completed state, the shoring on both C-46 [the four-story building] and C-47 [the two-story building] per your request on May 7th. It may appear, without further investigation, that for whatever reason some of the shor[e]s may have come loose, however in your letter of May 7th, not received until May 8th, you asked for all columns in both the 2 story and 4 story buildings, with no mention of the bearing on the foundation. As you well know, your letter was untimely since we had poured our slab on C-47 on the 7th of May and have shored from the slab on grade, on certified compacted sub soil to the 1st raised slab. However in this new letter you are only asking for 2 floors of the 4 story building. Am I to understand that that is the total requirement? On May 7th your letter, specific in nature, required only 4 shor[e]s and this new letter requires 6 shor[e]s. Which is it? Respondent's Exhibit No. 10. The last hour of the working day on May 15, 1981, Mr. Fowler ordered all his men to spend shoring the four-story building. Just how much additional time was devoted to shoring was not clear from the evidence. On May 16, 1981, respondent Fowler wrote Mr. Cowley that "we have already expended. . .64 man hours in reshoring these buildings per your specifications." Respondent's Exhibit No. 11. At the final hearing, however, Mr. Fowler testified that, on May 7, 1981, "five men working on the two buildings [did] nothing but shoring. . .four of those men eight hours and one of those men for four hours," (T. 304-305) (May 7: 36 hours); on May 8, 1981, "seven men working on the shoring on the two buildings for a period of time varying between six and eight hours per man," (T. 305) (May 8: 42 to 56 hours); on May 9, 1981, "five men for half a day. . .[did] nothing but shoring on the two buildings," (T. 305) (May 9: 20 hours); on May 11, 1981, "five men working on shoring for a period varying between five hours and eight hours on the two buildings," (T. 306) (May 11: 25 to 40 hours); on May 12, 1981, "six men working on the shoring. . .one man at four hours and one man at five hours and four men at eight hours," (T. 306) (May 12: 41 hours); on May 13, 1981, "five men working on shoring. . .two for four hours and three for eight hours," (T. 306) (May 13: 32 hours); and, on May 15, 1981, seven men each working one hour (May 15: 7 hours). In short, respondent testified at hearing that 203 hours, at a minimum, were spent shoring both buildings from May 7, 1981, through May 15, 1981. This testimony has not been credited because of the witness's interest, because it exceeds by a factor of three the contemporaneous estimate or claim in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11, and because it does not square with the time sheets, Respondent's Exhibit No. 26, or with the progress reports, Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 27 and 28, on which Mr. Fowler purported to base his testimony. Mr. Goode was one of the workmen who eventually placed shores in the four-story building, working from the ground up. Read most favorably to respondent, Mr. Goode's testimony was that two men could shore one floor of the four-story building in seven hours. This, too, supports the view that Mr. Fowler's testimony about shoring was grossly exaggerated. The record is clear, however, that work of some kind, including work that was not shoring nor incident to the load test nor remedial took place on and under the four-story building between May 7, 1981, and May 15, 1981, thereafter. See Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 26-28; Testimony of Goode, Williams, Fowler. LOAD TEST As late as May 16, 1981, Mr. Pariser wrote Mr. Cowley that "Bromley's letter. . .coupled with the inspection reports list. . .should, beyond a doubt, put your mind, and anyone else's mind, at ease that the buildings. . .are structurally sound." Respondent's Exhibit No. 13. About a week later, a load test was begun by a testing laboratory using criteria agreed on by Henry A. Luten for the City and by Arthur H. Bromley for Raben-Pastal. In order to perform the load test, the shoring under two bays was removed and scaffolding was erected in its place. Afterward, the scaffolding was removed and shores were reinstalled. LAWYERS' MISUNDERSTANDING Construction at The Hammocks had received increasingly strident publicity, depressing sales of prospective condominium apartments. Raben-Pastal was concerned that premature disclosure of the results of the load test might aggravate the situation. John R. Young, Esquire, raised the matter with Paul Stuart, Coconut Creek's city attorney. Mr. Young proposed that the city be represented at the test by its consulting engineers but that no city employee observe the test, against the possibility that a Sunshine Law disclosure requirement would result in dissemination of a public employee's notes or report on the load test, before those conducting the test had been afforded time to evaluate the significance of things like cracks. Mr. Stuart agreed to communicate this proposal to Mr. Cowley and did in fact do so. Mr. Stuart left town, and Mr. Young eventually assumed that his proposal had been accepted. That it had been accepted, he told Mr. Pariser in Mr. Fowler's hearing as fact. Messrs. Pariser and Fowler were surprised to learn then, on the day of the load test, that Ron Thomas, chief building inspector of Coconut Creek, had accompanied Benjamin Eigner, an employee of D. E. Britt & Associates, to the site. Raben-Pastal employees confronted Mr. Thomas, at the edge of the property, and Lee Smith radioed Mr. Pariser's office. Mr. Fowler went to the scene of the controversy and Mr. Pariser telephoned the police. After the police arrived and while Mr. Fowler was talking to a policeman, Mr. Thomas started in the direction of the load test being performed on the second floor of the four-story building; Mr. Fowler ran toward the building and physically interposed himself, blocking Thomas's way. At this juncture, Mr. Fowler was arrested. He was eventually acquitted of criminal charges arising out of this episode. BUILDER'S ENGINEER STOPS TEST Mr. Bromley, who was also on site for the load test, recommended to Raben-Pastal that it be stopped before completion, because "the deflection was at a point that if there was anything further, it would cause permanent structural damage." (T. 234.) Most of the engineers involved later came to agree that there was insufficient post-tension cable in the slabs and that there was a "punching shear problem," a 122-percent "over-stress in the punching shear area." (T. 238.) Punching shear occurs when the "concrete that adheres around the column leaves the rest of the floor area or the floor area separates from the concrete that adheres to the column," (T. 235) with the collapse of the building a possible result. Raben-Pastal's own engineer testified at the hearing that, "It was a dangerous situation, yes." (T. 235.) (Widening the columns eventually remedied the problem.) SECOND STOP WORK ORDER ENTERED On May 28, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote Mr. Pariser that he had visited the site on Sunday, May 25, 1981, found it deserted and "observed that the load test had very prudently been stopped slightly past the half way point." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12. The letter continued: With this knowledge, I have no choice but to place you on notice that the above referenced buildings are unsafe and constructed in a dangerous manner. Pursuant to section 201.9 of the South Florida Building Code and more specifically the fact that over-stressing and a danger of collapse was emminent [sic] if loading were continued. During a meeting held on May 27, 1981, with Mr. Britt, Mr. Luten, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Adams and myself in attendance, Mr. Bromley concluded that all work on the above referenced be stopped, with the exception of remedial repairs and additional testing if necessary until further notice. I am in complete accord and do so order. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12. By the time Mr. Pariser received this letter, he had already ordered all work stopped on or under both buildings, except for shoring, testing, or remedial work. Neither he nor respondent ever authorized any work in violation of the stop work order of May 28, 1981. On June 1, 1981, the day after respondent returned from vacation, Mr. Thomas visited the site and observed and photographed a workman standing on the ground underneath the four-story building, even though respondent had personally ordered everybody to stay out except for replacing shores as necessary. On or before May 29, 1981, the scaffolding installed for the load test had been removed and most, but not all, of the shores had been replaced. Some rested, however, not on the concrete pads around the columns but on scrap lumber and pieces of plywood. Also on June 1, 1981, at least one workman went underneath the four-story building to fetch a piece of PVC pipe.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license for six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 3rd day of September, 1982.
The Issue The principal issue in this case is whether certain local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code adopted by the Broward County Board of Review and Appeals (BORA) comply with the requirements of Section 553.73(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2001). As to Broward County, there is the additional issue of whether Broward County is a proper party to this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, and upon the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Findings about status of Broward County Respondent Broward County is a county created pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Broward County became a charter county effective on January 1, 1975, by a referendum approved by the voters of Broward County in November of 1974. In 1976, the Broward County Charter was amended to add a new Section 8.18, which the legislative history for the charter describes as establishing BORA as “an arm of Charter government.” Broward County has not voted to adopt any local amendments to the Florida Building Code. Findings about status of BORA Respondent BORA, is a board created under the provisions of the Charter of Broward County (the “Charter”). BORA was originally created in 1971 by a special act of the Florida legislature, 71-575, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1971. That special act adopted the South Florida Building Code, as the applicable building code for Broward County and included within the South Florida Building Code as Section 203 the following language, which created BORA: 203. Board of Rules and Appeals. In order to determine the suitability of alternate materials and types of construction, to provide for reasonable interpretation of the provisions of this code and to assist in the control of the construction of buildings and structures, there is hereby created a BORA, appointed by the appointing authority, consisting of twenty-four (24) members who are qualified by training and experience to pass on matters pertaining to building construction. Findings about status of Petitioners Petitioner, TRG-Aquazul, Ltd. ("TRG"), is a Florida limited partnership and is the developer of a high-rise multi- family residential building project located in Broward County (“Project”) which is subject to the Florida Building Code, as amended, in Broward County. Petitioner, Alfonso Fernandez-Fraga, is a principal of Initial Engineers. Mr. Fernandez-Fraga and Initial Engineers are the mechanical engineers of record on the Project. Mr. Fernandez-Fraga's firm has designed other high-rise residential buildings in Broward County in the past and plans on doing more such projects in the future. Petitioners allege that they will be materially and adversely affected by the application of the Broward County local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code in that the application of said technical amendments to the Project will require a redesign of the mechanical systems of the Project to comply with those technical amendments and undertaking such redesign will cost significant time and money. Alfonso Fernandez-Fraga submitted plans to the Broward County Building Department for approval in connection with the Project. The plans submitted included plans for smoke control measures. The smoke control measures were not approved by the chief mechanical official because in his estimation they did not comply with the local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code enacted by BORA on March 1, 2002. Despite the Broward County Building Official’s suggestion that Mr. Fernandez-Fraga appeal the Building Official’s decision interpreting the applicable code, Mr. Fernandez-Fraga decided not to appeal that decision. Rather, Mr. Fernandez-Fraga chose to challenge the validity of the local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code adopted by BORA, a different appeal than the one discussed with the Building Official. TRG, through its engineer and its architect of record on the project, attempted to comply with option four of the local technical amendments at issue here, which allows one to achieve an understanding with the local building official on an alternative method for smoke control. TRG could not, and did not, reach that understanding with the Broward County Building Official. The building that TRG proposes to build is over 75 feet high, which makes it subject to the local technical amendments at issue here. At the time the local technical amendments at issue here were being adopted, Petitioners were not concerned with such developments because at that time they did not have any projects in Broward County. Findings about BORA's amendment process Once it was clear that Florida was going to have a new statewide Florida Building Code, BORA embarked upon a course of action to adopt several local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code. Such amendments were allowed, with certain qualifications and requirements, by the then-new statutes providing for the implementation of a new Florida Building Code. On March 1, 2002, BORA adopted the local technical amendments that are at issue here. Those two local technical amendmants, Sections 412 and M403.6.4, contained standards for the application and testing of smoke control systems for high-rise buildings. The two amendments were more stringent than the corresponding requirements in the Florida Building Code. Each of these local technical amendments had been part of Broward County’s local building code in effect prior to the adoption of the Florida Building Code, and as set forth in the South Florida Building Code, Broward Edition. BORA sought to maintain the status quo within Broward County with respect to the adoption of these two local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code, a status quo that had been in effect since the mid 1980's. The two local technical amendments at issue here did not introduce any new subjects that had not previously been contained in the South Florida Building Code, Broward Edition. The process leading up to the adoption of amendments on March 1, 2002, began several months earlier with the appointment of a committee and a sub-committee to discuss and draft proposed amendments. The chairman of BORA’s Mechanical Committee appointed a subcommittee which reviewed materials and made decisions with respect to the Local Amendments and made recommendations to the Mechanical Committee which, in turn, made recommendations to BORA The meetings of BORA’s Mechanical Committee and its Smoke Control Subcommittee were not publicly noticed in the Sun Sentinel or any other local newspaper of general circulation. No findings or determinations made by BORA’s Mechanical Committee or Smoke Control Subcommittee with respect to the local need to enact the Local Amendments are reflected in the minutes of their meetings. On December 13, 2001, BORA held a hearing to receive and consider information from the subcommittee and the committee regarding the pending proposed amendments. BORA’s December 13, 2001 hearing was not publicly noticed in the Sun Sentinel or any other local newspaper. Final BORA action to adopt the proposed amendments was eventually scheduled for March 1, 2002. The March 1, 2002, BORA meeting was the only BORA meeting pertaining to the local technical amendments at issue here that was publicly noticed in the Sun Sentinel or any other local newspaper. BORA did not make any findings or determinations at the March 1, 2002, meeting. There was no discussion or determinations made at the March 1, 2002, hearing regarding whether there was a local need justifying the subject local technical amendments. There was no discussion at the March 1, 2002 hearing regarding the subject local technical amendments. At the March 1, 2002, meeting, BORA determined that what its Mechanical Committee presented was acceptable and BORA therefore voted to adopt it without any meaningful discussion. BORA did not make any other determinations with respect to the local technical amendments at that hearing. The members of the Florida Building Commission’s Mechanical and Technical Advisory Committee, which drafted and/or made recommendations with respect to the Florida Building Code, are presently considering the possibility of putting more stringent smoke control measures into the Florida Building Code for statewide application. Findings about the challenge process Broward County does not have, and has never had, an interlocal agreement establishing a countywide compliance review board for the purpose of reviewing any challenges to local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code that may be challenged by a substantially affected party. Neither Broward County, per se, nor any of the municipalities in Broward County, is authorized to exercise any authority over the building code in Broward County. In light of this situation in Broward County it appears to have been the concensus of the members of BORA that it was simply not necessary to structure any interlocal agreement nor create any county-wide compliance review board as otherwise generally provided for in the applicable statutory provisions. Thus, when Petitioner Fernandez-Fraga advised BORA that he wished to challenge the validity of two of the local technical amendments adopted by BORA, it was initially unclear where the challenge should be filed and where it should be heard. Following discussion with Commission staff, BORA advised that the challenge should be filed with BORA and would be heard by BORA. On or about March 20, 2003, Petitioners filed an appeal with BORA challenging the validity of the subject amendments. BORA scheduled a hearing on the challenge for April 10, 2003. BORA was apparently of the initial view that it was hearing the Petitioners' appeal in the capacity of a statutory "countywide compliance review board" because BORA originally noticed the April 10, 2003, hearing as being held by “the Board of Rules and Appeals sitting as a Countywide Compliance Review Board pursuant to Florida Statutes 553.73(4)(b) to hear challenges to Broward County Local Amendments to Sections 412 and M403.6.4 by Mr. Alfonso Fernandez-Fraga, P.A.” Notwithstanding the notice and agenda of the April 10, 2003, BORA meeting/hearing, during the course of the hearing BORA took the position that Broward County does not have a countywide compliance review board as described in Section 553.73(4)(b)8, Florida Statutes. Counsel for BORA stated, on the record, that BORA “has exclusive authority over the building code in Broward County.” Counsel then advised the Board: That statutory section which refers to an interlocal agreement applies to counties where the county and municipalities have the authority to amend the code. In Broward County, the municipalities and the county do not have that authority. Therefore, we don’t have a Compliance Review Board in Broward County because it’s just not authorized because we operate on a different procedure here. The Board of Rules and Appeals has the sole authority to amend the code, so we’re hearing this appeal tonight really as an appeal to reconsider whether the action of this board in March of 2002, when you passed these amendments, were done properly, and that’s the sole issue. The appeal was heard by BORA on April 10, 2003. BORA voted unanimously to deny the appeal. Mr. Fernandez-Fraga promptly received a letter from James DiPietro advising him that the appeal had been rejected. Thereafter the Petitioners timely filed their petition seeking relief from the Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Building Commission issue a final order which concludes that, for the reasons set forth above, the local technical amendments adopted by BORA which are challenged in this case fail to comply with the requirements of Section 553.73(4)(b)1, Florida Statutes (2001), and are invalid local technical amendments, and further concluding that Broward County is not a necessary or appropriate party to this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 30th day of June, 2003.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a registered roofing contractor, having been issued License No. RC0034672, in the name of John M. Sneed, Beall and Associates Roofing Corp., 7650 Southwest 135th Street, Miami, Florida 33156. Sometime during the month of October, 1951, Jerry Stamos entered into an oral agreement with Bill Parry and Billy Duncan, to have Parry and Duncan reroof Stamos's home at 441 Castonia Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida. The contract price for the reroofing work was $4,000. At no time was either Duncan or Parry licensed to perform roofing work. As a result, after Mr. Stamos was unable to obtain a building permit in his own name to perform the work, Duncan contacted Respondent, and requested that Respondent pull the building permit for the job. On October 20, 1981, Respondent obtained City of Coral Gables, Department of Building and Zoning Permit No. A48375 to perform the work on the Stamos's property. At the time the building permit was pulled by Respondent, no work had commenced on the job. Duncan and Parry were paid a total of $4,000 for the job, $100 in cash; $2,000 on October 13, 1981; and an additional $1,900 on October 22, 1981. Shortly after the building permit was pulled and work had been commenced on the property by Duncan and Parry, Duncan and Parry stopped work on the roof and never returned. Respondent was on the job site on at least one occasion when work was being performed. No notice was furnished to Mr. Stamos concerning cessation of work on the project, nor was he ever given an explanation of why work stopped and was never recommenced by Parry, Duncan, or Respondent. Respondent never supervised any of the work performed by Parry or Duncan, nor did he ever call for any inspection of the project by the City of Coral Gables, Department of Building and Zoning. The South Florida Building Code, Section 3401.1(b) provides as follows: INSPECTION. The Building Officials shall be notified by the permit holder and ample time for mandatory inspections to be made as follows: At the time the anchor sheet is being mopped to non-nailable decks. At the completion of mechanically fastening the anchor sheet to nailable decks and before mopping. During the operation of shingling or tiling. Upon completion of the roof covering. On December 1, 1981, Respondent contacted the City of Coral Gables, Department of Building and Zoning, and cancelled the permit previously obtained by him on October 20, 1981. At that time, Respondent represented to city officials that construction had never started on the project, although he knew that representation to he false. The building project remained unfinished for a period in excess of ninety days before Mr. Stamos had the job finished by another contractor.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, Benjamin J. Eigner, held certified general contractor's license number CG C001534 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board. In 1980, Respondent was employed by the City of Tamarac as its chief building official. In that position his major function was to administrate and supervise employees who enforced the South Florida Building Code and the Code of Ordinances of the City of Tamarac. (Respondent's Exhibit 2). His duties included, inter alia, the review of qualifications and issuance of certificates of competency to contractors who wished to work within the City. On or about February 7, 1980, the Broward County Grand Jury issued a true bill or indictment against Respondent charging him with having solicited a bribe in his capacity as chief building official for the City of Tamarac. On or about July 3, 1980, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere in Broward County Circuit Court to the charge of bribery. Adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence was withheld, and Respondent was placed on probation for a period of five years. As a special condition, Respondent was also required to spend one year in the Broward County Jail. (Respondent's Exhibit 1). Because of health problems, Respondent was medically discharged from serving the remainder of his one year incarceration on January 26, 1981.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in the Administrative Complaint and that his certified general contractor's license be suspended for a period of nine months from the date of the final order entered herein after which time it shall be automatically reinstated. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Myron B. Berman, Esquire P. O. Box 1113 North Miami Beach, Florida 33160 Mr. Benjamin J. Eigner 7850 Beechfern Circle Tamarac, Florida 33321
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent Farrall was licensed as a certified general contractor in Florida, and held license number CG C040234. In addition, the Respondent was licensed as a certified roofing contractor and held license number CC C024398. Mr. Farrall was the qualifying agent for Sunmaster Roofing Company. On May 25, 1987, Sunmaster Roofing Company entered into a contract with Clarence A. Miller and Emily Miller to reroof their residence in Naples, Florida. After the project was completed, Mr. and Mr. Miller filed a complaint with the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board on December 7, 1987. Essentially, the complaint alleged as follows: 1) that the contractor abandoned the job without adequately completing construction; 2) that the roof materials were incorrectly installed; 3) that the contractor failed to obtain a building permit; and 4) that the contractor failed to adequately perform the contract due to his failure to correct faulty workmanship on the job. On December 11, 1987, copies of the complaint and a notice of hearing was sent to Respondent Farrall by certified mail to two different addresses. The items were promptly received at both locations. On January 15, 1988, the Respondent acknowledged that he was personally aware of the hearing scheduled for January 20, 1988. The Respondent requested a continuance until after January 29, 1988, because he had to attend to urgent family matters which required his presence in Canada. A continuance was not granted, and the hearing proceeded as scheduled. The Respondent was aware that the hearing was not continued prior to his departure for Canada. On January 20, 1988, a hearing was held, and the local board received evidence regarding the Miller complaint. As a result of the hearing, the local board found that the Respondent violated specific county ordinances in the following manner: by abandoning the job without legal excuse; disregarding or violating the building code by failing to obtain a building permit; and by failing to make good, faulty workmanship obviously performed in evasion of performance of the contract. The Respondent was disciplined by the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board on January 20, 1988. His permit privileges were suspended in Collier County until the contractor makes restitution and appears before the Board for reinstatement. The Respondent was given fifteen days to appeal the decision. The Respondent personally received a copy of the disposition of the hearing by certified mail on January 28, 1988. An appeal was not taken of the decision.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the charges set forth in the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, John W. Farrall, in Case No. 89-3291 be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-3291 The proposed findings of fact set forth in Petitioner's proposed recommended order are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. See HO #1. 2. Accepted. See HO #2. 3. Accepted. See HO #1 and #2 4. Accepted. See HO #8 and #9. 5. Accepted. See HO #8. Rejected. Irrelevant to the charges filed. Rejected. Irrelevant to the charges filed. The proposed findings of fact filed by the Respondent are addressed as follows: Accept the first two sentences. See HO #1. The rest of paragraph 1 is rejected as improper argument which is not based upon material evidence presented at hearing. Accepted. See HO #2. Rejected. The issue in this proceeding involves the discipline by the local government board and not the underlying facts upon which the board based its findings. Immaterial. 4. Rejected. Immaterial. See above. Rejected. Rejected. Rejected. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Rejected. Rejected. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Rejected. Rejected. Rejected. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Contrary to fact. See HO #6. Rejected. Rejected. Contrary to Irrelevant. fact. See HO #9. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack M. Larkin, Esquire 806 Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 John W. Farrall 316-2 Tudor Drive Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 111 East Coastline Drive, Room 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, Charles E. Sullivan, abandoned the construction project of his customer, Otto Kipar at a time when he had received 98 percent of the contract price and completed approximately 75 percent of the job, and whether or not such abandonment constituted a violation of Section 468.112(2)(h), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon the administrative complaint filed by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Occupational Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, against the Respondent, Charles E. Sullivan, d/b/a Suwannee Roofing Company. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida empowered to administer and regulate those individuals who hold various licenses with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Charles E. Sullivan, d/b/a Suwannee Roofing Company holds a registered roofing contractor's license and the number is RC 18162. In May 16, 1977, Otto Kipar, a resident of Suwannee County, Florida, entered into a contract for the Respondent to perform certain roofing work and associated to the roofing. The terms and conditions of this contract may be founded in the Petitioner's Exhibit 2, admitted into evidence. The price of the contract was in the amount of $2,500, to be paid by Mr. Kipar in an installment of $2,450 when the roofing was finished and a $50 balance when the chimney was flashed. Among other things, the contract called for the setting of the trusses on the roof, sheeting the roof with plywood, running facia boards, putting up the jack molding and putting on roofing shingles. The work was to be done by Suwannee Roofing, which is owned by the Respondent, Charles E. Sullivan, and all of the materials were to be furnished by Mr. Kipar, with the exception of the shingles and the staples necessary to nail the shingles into the plywood sheeting. The Respondent's employees went to the job site and started to install the roof. On June 24, 1977, Berl Wilson, a building inspector for Suwannee County, Florida, went to the job site and inspected the roof. He determined that the work on the roof was 50 percent completed. He found the trusses up and the sheeting and shingles installed. However, he felt that the roof construction was unsatisfactory and that the roof would eventually fall in. He immediately tried to contact Mr. Sullivan, the Respondent, and was able to speak to him on June 27, 1978. At that point, Mr. Sullivan indicated that he would work the matter out with the owner, Mr. Kipar. In August, 1977, the Respondent hired some individuals to go to the job site and make adjustments to the roof, so that it would structurally meet the necessary building standards of Suwannee County, Florida, and comply with his contract with Mr. Kipar, as to that element. At the behest of Mr. Kipar, the building inspector Wilson returned to the job site in August or September 1977, and discovered that the roof was not shingled over 25 percent to 35 percent of the roof area. In that particular part of the roof, only the felt paper was installed on the sheeting. This caused the roof to fail to meet the Southern Building Code, in terms of requirements of that code. It was also in violation of the contract conditions which called for the Respondent to install the shingles over the entire roof, not just part of it. When confronted with the fact of the incompleted roof, the Respondent told Wilson that he had spent over $600 in trying to make the necessary adjustment to the trusses and that he felt no obligation to spend any other money on the Kipar job. Therefore, the job was left unfinished and when Mr. Wilson saw the job site on March 22, 1978, he found it in the same state as had been indicated in August/September 1977, in that the roof was still 25 percent to 35 percent without shingles. The Respondent and his employees did not return to the job site to complete the roofing and Mr. Kipar had to make those arrangements himself. This abandonment on the part of the Respondent came, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Kipar, in accordance with the contract had paid the Respondent $2,450 on May 30, 1977, as shown by Petitioner's Exhibit number 3, admitted into evidence. In summary, the Respondent was paid 98 percent of the amount of the contract, which constituted the full amount of payment with exception of $50 for flashing the chimney, and the Respondent abandoned the job when 25 percent to 35 percent of the shingles remained to be installed. This abandonment constitutes cause for disciplinary action in accordance with Section 468.112(2)(h), Florida Statutes, which states: ... (h) Abandonment of a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor. A project is to be considered abandoned after 90 days if the contractor terminates said project without notification to the prospective owner and without just cause. Abandonment has been demonstrated here because the Respondent did not work on the roof after the period of August/ September, 1977, and as stated before the roof was missing 25 percent to 35 percent of the necessary shingles at that time. In addition, the Respondent failed to notify the owner of this abandonment and the abandonment was without just cause.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Occupation Regulations, Florida Construction Licensing Board, suspend the Respondent's, Charles E. Sullivan's roofing contractor's license, RC18I62, for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles E. Sullivan Suwannee Roofing Company Post Office Box 999 Live Oak, Florida 32060 CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building MAILING ADDRESS: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Thomas J. Embro holds two licenses issued by Petitioner. They are RG0021774, registered general contractor, and RC0021647, registered roofing contractor. He has held these licenses since 1974. Sometime in the fall of 1979 Respondent was hired by Richard F. Rogers to replace the roof on a residential structure located at 4119 N.W. 12th Avenue, Gainesville, Florida. At that time the house was for sale. Mr. Rogers, who is a real estate agent, wanted the roof replaced in anticipation of a Veterans Administration financed sale of the house to Mr. William Schrader. Prior to beginning work on the roof Mr. Embro did not obtain a building permit from the City of Gainesville for the job. On October 1, 1979 Mr. Schrader made a complaint to the Building Division of the City of Gainesville. His complaint stated that the roofing work performed by Respondent was unsatisfactory. Mr. Al Davis, a building inspector employed by Gainesville, reviewed the city records and determined that a permit had not been issued to Respondent for reroofing Mr. Schrader's house. On October 3, 1979 Mr. Davis wrote a letter to Mr. Embro which stated in its entirety: October 3, 1979 Mr. Thomas J. Embro 3816 SW 18 Street Gainesville, Florida Dear Sir: We have received a complaint from Mr. Bill Schrader of 4119 NW 12th Avenue on the reroofing that you performed on his residence. After receiving the complaint I investigated out records and the work performed by your company and found the following violations: Our records indicate that a permit was not issued to reroof the above address, this is a violation of Section 106.1 of the Southern Standard Building Code. The roof material was not installed correctly. Shingles shall be installed in accordance to manufacture [sic] re- quirements and some parts of the roof are too flat for shingles. Interior damage has been caused by the roof leaking from not installing the shingles as required. The above violations shall be corrected within 10 days from receipt of this letter. Your compliance will make further action unnecessary. Sincerely, /s/ Al Davis Building Official cc: Mr. Bill Dow, State Investigator Mr. Bill Schrader Mr. Embro applied on October 25, 1979 for a permit from Gainesville for the work at 4119 N.W. 12th Avenue. The permit was issued on December 6, 1979. It is not unusual in Gainesville for a contractor to begin a construction job before the appropriate permit is applied for or issued. When this is not a frequent practice of a particular contractor the City imposes no penalty. If the contractor habitually begins construction without permits, the City imposes a penalty by charging him double the regular permit application fee. Mr. Embro was not charged a penalty by the City in this case. In the course of his contracting business Mr. Embro frequently asked his wife to make permit applications for him before he begins work. In this case he believed that she had applied for the appropriate permit. The City of Gainesville allows persons other than the contractor to apply for a building permit on behalf of a contractor if the contractor has first filed an authorization with the City designating an agent. Mr. Embro filed such an authorization on February 13, 1980 for his wife to be his designated agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Thomas J. Embro. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 1981.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Hodges J. Jefferson, is a registered general contractor having been issued License No. CGC004463. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure status of contractors in the State of Florida, and with enforcing the requirements of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, pertaining to licensing and regulation of the practices of general contractors in Florida. On or about March 3, 1979, Respondent, doing business as H. J. Jefferson Brothers Construction, Inc., entered into a contract with Gladston Kemp to construct a room addition on his residence for a total sum of $14,900. The construction loan by which Mr. Kemp was to finance the addition was ultimately approved sometime in April 1979. The Respondent commenced work on the property after the first check was paid him by Mr. Kemp on May 3, 1979. The Respondent worked for two to three days digging the foundation, constructing the foundation and the brick wall involved and then stopped work for a period of four to five weeks. He then came back and worked on the addition, finishing construction of the foundation, the block walls, the tie beam and the bedroom portion of the roof up to the first layer of tar paper on one side of the addition. The other side of the addition to Mr. Kemp's house was left at that point with the roof not being constructed at all. Up to July 20, 1979, Mr. Kemp had paid the Respondent a total of $7,500, inasmuch as the contract called for payments in one-third increments of the total contract price at various stages of construction. At that point the Respondent left the job after being paid $7,500 of the total price. By letter of July 24, 1979, the Respondent demanded an additional $2,900 which would complete approximately the second one-third of the total contract price and on the following day, July 25, Mr. Kemp paid the Respondent the $2,900. Thus, at that point, July 25, 1979, Mr. Kemp had paid the Respondent a total of $10,400. The Respondent did not come back and continue construction of the project. Mr. Kemp tried repeatedly to contact the Respondent, to no avail. After numerous efforts, he contacted him by telephone and the Respondent assured him that he would come by and send "his man" out to commence work, but no one ever appeared to continue the construction. Finally, in October, 1979, Mr. Kemp contacted the Respondent and he once again assured Mr. Kemp that he would come back to finish the job. Additionally, sometime after July 25, 1979, the Respondent demanded $375 from Mr. Kemp to pay for the architectural plans drafted by Edna Mingo, the architect who drafted the plans for the job in January, 1979. Mr. Kemp had already paid the $375 to Edna Mingo in January of 1979. In any event, he relented and gave the Respondent the additional $375 in order to induce him to come back and finish the job. Finally, in the latter part of October 1979, the Respondent returned to the job and began putting rafters on the bedroom portion of the addition. He then asked Mr. Kemp to advance him some more money, over and above the $10,775 Mr. Kemp had already paid him. The roof on one-half of the addition was still not finished, but Mr. Kemp gave the Respondent another $1,700 by check dated November 16, 1979. Approximately two weeks thereafter Mr. Kemp gave the Respondent another $500 in cash. Shortly before Thanksgiving 1979, the Respondent came to the project and asked Mr. Kemp to advance him some more money which Mr. Kemp refused to do. Several days later Mr. Kemp received a "demand letter" from the Respondent asking for more money and reminding him of his obligation to honor the contract. At that point Mr. Kemp contacted the Respondent and met with him at the job site, whereupon Mr. Kemp displayed to him all the checks he had already paid him, informing him of the total amount of money paid and that he did not feel that he owed him any more money. He demanded that the Respondent complete his job. The Respondent, in turn, sent Mr. Kemp a letter on November 21,1979, informing him that he would complete the job if Mr. Kemp gave him the last one- third of the contract price. At that point Mr. Kemp had already given the Respondent $12,975, so, less than one-third of the contract price was still outstanding. The Respondent assured Mr. Kemp in that letter (Petitioner's Exhibit 17, in evidence) that he would complete the job by December 15, 1979. Mr. Kemp gave the Respondent another $2,100 making a total of $15,075 paid to the Respondent (the contract price being $14,900). Respondent did not complete the job in December 1979 and indeed never completed it. He went to Mr. Kemp's house "one night in December" and discussed the job with Mrs. Kemp's wife and assured her that he was going to try and get the job "out of the way" by January. The Respondent never came back to continue working on the job and never communicated with the Kemps after December 1979, except for a fist fight between Mr. Kemp and the Respondent engendered by the bitterness resulting form this dispute which occurred in July 1980. Mr. Kemp and his wife, however, went to the Respondent's home in January 1980 to ask him when he would complete the job. He became abusive and would not give them a copy of the plans so that the Kemps had to get a duplicate copy from the architect so Mr. Kemp could then obtain the appropriate inspections from the building department. There were no extra additions to the contract and the only work ever required of the Respondent was that described on the building plans. The fees fro the electrical, plumbing, and building permits were paid by Mr. Kemp. At the time the Respondent left the job it was approximately 55 percent complete. The roof was incomplete. Mr. Kemp had to do the "rough plumbing," the "finish plumbing," install a half bath, a utility room and a full bath in the bedroom. Mr. Kemp also had to "rough in" the electrical wiring, that is, run the electrical service wiring inside the house for the finish electrical work. Mr. Kemp also had to install drywall and plaster inside and outside the house and completely "finish out" the addition to his home. He supplied some of the labor for this himself and hired various subcontractors to do other portions of the work such that he ultimately spent approximately $9,000 in excess of the amount paid Respondent in order to finish the job in accordance with the building plans. Completion of the work thus cost the Kemps an additional $9.000 above the $15,075 already paid the Respondent, with the use of the monies paid Respondent for the last 45 percent of the work required of him by the contract being unexplained, except for the Respondent's general statement that some of that money was attributable to unaccounted for "overhead" costs. The Respondent left the job in terms of performing any work in October 1979, promised to finish it in December and later in January 1980, and never returned to finish the job or perform any more work such that sometime in the summer of 1980 the Kemps ultimately finished the job through their own labors and that of various subcontractors and materialmen they were forced to hire and pay.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the contractor's license of Hodges J. Jefferson be suspended for a period of 5 years, provided however, that if he makes full restitution to the Kemps of all monies they expended for labor, materials and permits to complete the work he was contractually obligated to complete within one year from a Final Order herein that that suspension should be terminated and his license reinstated. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 45 Southwest 36th Court Miami, Florida 33135 Hodges J. Jefferson 2250 Northwest 194th Terrace Miami, Florida 33156 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
