The Issue The issues presented are whether Respondent signed and sealed negligent drawings for one single-family residence and provided plan review certification for two other projects designed by Respondent in violation of Subsections 471.033(1)(g) and 553.791(3), Florida Statutes (2002), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-19.001(6)(n).1
Findings Of Fact The Board of Professional Engineers (Board) is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. Section 471.038, Florida Statutes, authorizes Petitioner to provide the Board with administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services. Respondent is licensed in the state as a professional engineer pursuant to license number PE 54476. It is undisputed that Respondent is a private provider within the meaning of Subsection 553.791(1)(g), Florida Statues. On October 29, 2002, Respondent signed and sealed drawings for a single-family residence identified in the record as the Barnes residence. It is less than clear and convincing that the drawings for the Barnes residence are deficient. The testimony of Respondent's expert witness was credible and persuasive. The applicable standard of care does not require the relevant drawings to include multiple ridge heights in order to describe the nature and character of the work to be performed with sufficient clarity. It is less than clear and convincing that the ridge heights in the drawings are unequal. Additional ridge height information would have been non-critical information that may have been interpreted as specific construction requirements and lead to confusion, added costs, conflicting interpretations, and potential hazards in buildings. It is less than clear and convincing that the drawings for the Barnes residence insufficiently show heights of the eaves or lintels and sills. The plans can be easily understood by tradesmen and inspectors. The typical wall section at page 4 of the plans addresses eaves, lintels, and sills. The ridge height requirements in Manatee County, Florida (the County), are intended to ensure compliance with maximum height restrictions. The mean heights in the drawings adequately address the maximum local height ordinances. It is less than clear and convincing that the roof entry plan provided insufficient clarity. The roof was constructed according to the local code requirements without apparent exception. The evidence does not support a finding that the roof entry plan, the ridge heights, lintels, eaves, and sills were insufficiently clear to describe the nature and character of the work to be performed. Clear and convincing evidence does not support a finding that the wind uplift for roof trusses in the plans was incorrect or unclear. If the wind load calculations were found to be deficient, the specified fittings were sufficient to withstand wind loads that exceeded the calculations of Petitioner's expert by approximately 70 percent. Wind load calculations are intended to ensure a roof will sustain the load and will not blow off of the house. The fittings were sufficient to secure the roof against the projected wind load. Clear and convincing evidence does not support a finding that the drawings failed to specify the applicable masonry inspection requirements. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that special masonry inspections are required for single-family residences of two stories or less. A masonry inspection is required for such structures when a building inspector finds a need for such an inspection. It is less than clear and convincing that the drawings fail to adequately specify the splice lengths of the bond beam reinforcement for tension, compression, intersections, and corners. The requisite evidence does not support a finding that the plans deviate from the standard of care in the community. Clear and convincing evidence does not support a finding that Respondent failed to comply with applicable soil condition requirements. The County did not require soil conditions on plans at the time Respondent drew the plans. From sometime in the 1940s through November 2003, the County permitted engineers to assume soil conditions with a ground load of 2000 pounds per square foot. Respondent drew the plans for the Barnes project in 2002. The testimony of Petitioner's expert does not relate to facts in evidence. The expert did not know County allowances for soil conditions at the time Respondent drew the plans. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that the design of the concrete footings cannot be verified from the plans. Nor does the requisite evidence support a finding that the plans do not specify reinforcement of the thickened edge under a load bearing wood stud wall at the garage. The plans include two reinforcement specifications for the thickened edge under the load bearing wood stud wall at the garage. The specifications include welded wire mesh and reinforced steel bars. Clear and convincing evidence does not support a finding that Respondent supplied or submitted the Barnes plans for permit. Without such a finding, Respondent was not required to prepare, submit, or seal a site plan. A site plan for the Barnes residence exists in the file of the County Building Department (Department). A Department representative confirmed that the site plan is sufficient and that an engineer of record is not required to prepare, submit, or seal a site plan unless the engineer of record actually submits the plans for a permit. On February 24 and March 7, 2003, Respondent signed and sealed drawings for respective projects at 14815 Coker Gully Road, Myakka, Florida (the Coker project), and 705 50th Avenue, Plaza West, Bradenton, Florida (the Yonkers project). Pursuant to Section 553.791, Florida Statutes, Respondent entered into a contract with an entity identified in the record as Griffis Custom Homes (Griffis) to provide either building code plans or inspection services, or both. Prior to the commencement of the two projects in question, the Department expressly permitted an engineer to provide building code inspection services involving buildings designed or constructed by the engineer. Respondent prepared private provider affidavits, obtained additional insurance, had forms made, and prepared to provide inspections services. Respondent immediately ceased his activities when Department officials objected to Respondent's stated intention of providing "private provider" building code inspection services for the Coker and Yonkers projects. The separate owners of the two projects withdrew their applications as "private provider" projects. The Department processed the projects, performed all inspections, and issued a certificate of occupancy for each project. Neither the Department, Petitioner, nor the Board, ever served Respondent with a Notice of Non-compliance. If it were found that Respondent committed the alleged violation, the violation was minor. There is no evidence of any economic or physical harm, or significant threat of harm, to a person or to the health, safety, or welfare of the public. There is no evidence that Respondent has any prior discipline against his license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the alleged violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 2nd day of May, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license as a registered building contractor should be disciplined for the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, as amended?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Robert Tucker, is a registered building contractor holding State of Florida license number RB 0033063 (Ex. 7). Respondent was licensed as a building contractor by the State of Florida in September 1978, and has remained licensed at all times material hereto (Ex. 7). Since September 20, 1978, Respondent has held a local Building Contractor's License issued by the Leon County Contractor Licensing and Examination Board (Ex. 7). Respondent's license with the Department has been delinquent since July 1, 1985 (Ex. 7). In July 1983, Respondent made an oral agreement with Violet Gladieux to erect a carport for her at a cost of $1,350 (Ex. 3). Ms. Gladieux's residence is located at 2321 Belle Vue Way, within the city limits of Tallahassee. Jay Gladieux, Jr. became acquainted with Mr. Tucker from his position as an employee of Mr. Tucker on a prior construction project. Mr. Gladieux introduced his mother, Ms. Gladieux, to Mr. Tucker for the carport construction. It was orally agreed that Ms. Gladieux would pay Mr. Tucker for supplies as they were needed. Mr. Tucker began erection of the carport approximately one week after July 11, 1983, when he received the first payment of $300. On July 29, 1983, Mr. Tucker received final payment of $350 so that he could complete the carport (Ex. 3). Approximately two weeks after July 29, 1983, Respondent completed the carport. A permit for the erection of the carport was required by Section 7-63, Buildings and Construction Regulations (The Building Code) of the City of Tallahassee. The language of that ordinance has not changed since 1957 (Ex. 1). No building permit was ever obtained by Mr. Tucker for erection of the carport. Approximately two weeks after completion of the carport, it collapsed after a heavy rainfall (Ex. 4 and 5). Mr. Tucker returned to repair the damaged carport. He erected center studs and was to return later to complete the damage repair. Mr. Tucker has failed to return to complete the damage repair after requested to do so by Jay Gladieux. When an administrative complaint has been filed against a contractor, personal service of the complaint is attempted upon the contractor at his last address of record. If personal service cannot be effectuated at the contractor's last address of record, further attempts are made to locate the contractor. The building departments, both City and County, the telephone company, utility company and post office are contacted. The building departments are contacted to determine if the contractor has obtained any permits, for the permits would list the contractor's address. The telephone company is contacted for prior and new telephone listing(s) with address(es). The post office is contacted for forwarding address(es). The utility company is contacted for new utility service which would contain a new address (es). If the contractor cannot be located after using these avenues, a diligent search affidavit is executed by the investigator who is attempting to serve the contractor. In September 1978 and at all times pertaining to the construction of the carport, Respondent's address of record with the Department was 1515-21 Paul Russell Road and P.O. Box 20234, Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent had not notified the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board of any change in his address (Ex. 7), other than by the new address revealed on the Election of Rights form he filed in response to the administrative complaint. The Department attempted to personally serve Mr. Tucker at his listed address and could not locate him there. On May 21, 1984, Robert E. Connell, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, executed a diligent search affidavit concerning service of the Administrative Complaint upon Mr. Tucker in this proceeding (Ex. 8).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent be found guilty of the charges in count one of the Administrative Complaint, as amended; that counts two and three be dismissed; and that he be fined $250.00. DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of April 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY,JR., Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. 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 Errol H. Powell, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Robert Tucker P.O. Box 10218 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent are correct and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a Florida licensed professional engineer, holding license number PE 45941. There have been no prior disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent. The Respondent acted as the general contractor in the construction of his personal residence, which is the structure at issue in this proceeding. There is no evidence that the structure, as built, fails to meet applicable standards and requirements. On December 16, 1999, the Respondent submitted to the City of Clearwater Building Department, 29 sheets of building plans for alterations to the Respondent's residence. Of the 29 sheets, three were apparently signed and sealed by an engineer identified as Shields E. Clark, P.E., who did not testify at the hearing. Nineteen of the 29 sheets contain the statement, "[a] windload review of this plan has been made by Shields E. Clark, P.E. and it is certified to be in compliance with Section 1606 of the Standard Building Code 1994." The plans apparently confused the Clearwater Building Department official who reviewed the material. He asked the Respondent to meet with him and explain the project. The meeting occurred on or about January 10, 2000. During the meeting, the Respondent signed and sealed 22 of the 29 sheets; afterwards, the reviewing official noted they were unsigned. Four sheets of the initial plans were not signed and sealed by anyone. The Clearwater Building Department relies on the engineering certification in determining whether plans should be approved. The Respondent signed and sealed the plans as a professional engineer and the plans were approved. As to all of the plans submitted by the Respondent to the Clearwater Building Department, the Petitioner presented the expert testimony of James Owen Power, a Florida licensed engineer. Mr. Power's testimony was persuasive and is credited. (Sheet numbers identified herein reference the page numbers in Joint Exhibit 1.) According to Mr. Power's testimony, a number of deficiencies exist in the plans submitted on December 16, 1999. The deficiencies noted by Mr. Power include: the failure to specify which of two methods was used in calculating compliance with Southern Building Code windload requirements; depiction of a three-foot overhang projection on sheet 12 which is not depicted on other pages in the same plans; lack of a footing under a center post (sheet 19); lack of a beam at the center post to indicate what is being supported (sheet 21); inadequate support of the center post (sheet 22); a failure to provide for transfer of a portion of the roof load to an appropriate support (sheet 22); inadequate support for the load being carried (sheet 23); and depiction of a sample wall section atypical of all conditions throughout the proposed construction. On March 15, 2000, the Respondent submitted a 22-page set of drawings to the Clearwater Building Department that appear to have been signed and sealed by the Respondent on March 14, 2000. According to Mr. Power's testimony, a number of deficiencies exist in the plans submitted on March 15, 2000. The deficiencies noted by Mr. Power include: the failure to indicate whether differences in foundation, floor and roof framing, between the initial plan submission and the March 15 submission, were to be regarded as substituted plans or changes to the initial plans; the failure on five sheets to refer to windload certification; the failure to correlate position of cross beams to posts (sheet 43); differing numbers and locations of cross beams within the plan submission (sheets 43 and 44); a cantilevered wall that is identified without appropriate detailing; omission on sheet 45 of a "transverse" beam depicted on sheet 44; depiction of a wall not previously shown and two previously un-shown beams over the garage door (sheet 46); the appearance of a previously un-shown and unspecified pipe column in the middle of the garage opening (sheet 46); the lack of proper identification of a post and partition depicted on the column view (sheet 47); inconsistent identification of the dimensions of a balcony overhang (sheets 43, 49 and 52); and alteration of original rafter sizes without notice of the change (sheet 63). On March 28, 2000, the Respondent submitted an 11-page set of drawings and two sheets of cost estimates to the Clearwater Building Department that appear to have been signed and sealed by the Respondent on March 28, 2000. According to Mr. Power's testimony, a number of deficiencies exist in the plans submitted on March 28, 2000. The deficiencies noted by Mr. Power include: omission of a footing and pipe column depicted in the second set of plans without notification of change (sheet 31); the inability to determine the intent of "back addition lower plan" (sheet 32); alteration of the notation of a wall from the second set of plans (sheet 33); inconsistent depiction of the new wall foundation at the left side of the structure (sheet 33); inconsistent identification of the footing at the center of the garage opening (sheets 31, 33, and 34); inconsistent depiction of footers (sheets 34 and 35); inconsistent depiction of columns and beams (sheets 33, 34 and 35); and alteration in the manner of depicting partitions within the structure from the depiction contained in the initial submission (sheet 37). On June 12, 2000, the Respondent submitted another 11- page set of plans to the Clearwater Building Department that appear to have been signed and sealed by the Respondent on March 28, 2000. According to Mr. Power's testimony, a number of deficiencies exist in the plans submitted on June 12, 2000. The deficiencies noted by Mr. Power include: identification of beams as "optional" without defining the requirements of either option (sheets 64 and 65); depiction of knee braces not previously identified in previous plans (sheet 65); inconsistent depiction of partitions (sheets 65 and 69); alteration of wall width from second plan submission without adequate notification of change (sheets 49 and 66); depiction of knee braces without proper consideration of lateral load (sheet 66); depiction of a diagonal structure the intent of which is unclear (sheet 68); inconsistent depiction of a center joist (sheets 38 and 69); alteration to the previous depiction of rafters without notification (sheet 67); deletion of footing and a column in the center of the garage opening without notification (sheets 68 and 70); and the addition of a door to the left of the garage opening without notification of change from prior submissions. The Respondent's building plan submissions fail to meet professional standards. Structural elements were added, altered, and deleted without appropriate notification, and within submissions, elements were inconsistently depicted. The Respondent's failure to meet professional standards resulted in building plans that were ambiguous and unclear.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order reprimanding Phillip J. Matonte, P.E., for negligence in this matter, and placing him on probation for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 11th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 J. Robert Griffin, Esquire Tilton & Metzger, P.A. 1435 East Piedmont Drive, Suite 210 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether the Respondent's license as a professional engineer should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the allegations set forth in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of professional engineering in Florida. During the applicable time period set forth in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent, Charles A. Wunder, Sr., was licensed as a professional engineer in Florida. He holds license number PE0016670, which has been in effect continuously since 1971. Respondent Wunder's last known address on file with the Board of Professional Engineers is 12620 Eagle Road, Cape Coral, Florida 33909. Plaza 1300 In 1981, the Respondent was commissioned by Messrs. Mike Zak and John Zipkovich to prepare plans for the construction of a commercial building to be developed in Cape Coral, Florida, known as Plaza 1300. At the time the commission took place, the owner-developers represented to Respondent that the construction company with whom he was involved would build the project, and he would supervise construction as a professional engineer. Based upon this representation, the Respondent designed and prepared plans in a way that was less time consuming than the creation of a plan to be used without his continuous supervision and direct involvement in construction. Instead of placing all of the specifications on the drawings, the Respondent chose to incorporate many of the details in the plan through the use of separate specification booklets which would be used by the fabricators and the Respondent during construction. The Respondent judged that this was a reasonable approach to the project design based upon the information he was given by the owner- developers during the design phase. The original plans for the building were completed in January of 1982. Four copies of the drawings, as completed by the Respondent for this project, were sealed with Respondent Wunder's professional seal as an engineer and were given to his clients during that same month and year. These drawings were specific enough to allow Messrs. Zak and Zipkovich to decide whether this was the building they wanted built at the project site. The Respondent did not give the owners the technical specifications that had been placed in the separate booklets because this aspect of the design was beyond what they were seeking to review at the time the project design was presented to them. After the Respondent discussed with the owner-developers what it would cost to build the project, they decided to find another builder who would construct the project for less money. The owner-developers used the sealed drawings when they went looking for a cheaper builder. They did not advise the Respondent of their decision not to retain the construction firm with whom he was affiliated, and they did not reveal they were going to use the drawings for the purpose of retaining a contractor. The owners gave the drawings to David J. Hayes, the general contractor and qualifier for Coral Bay Construction, Inc. This construction company was hired by the owners to build Plaza 1300 pursuant to the sealed drawings created by Respondent Wunder. Once the Respondent was advised that his construction company would not build the building, there must have been some discussions and agreements made with the owner-developers as to how Respondent Wunder would remain on the project for engineering purposes. It is obvious from the evidence adduced at hearing that the Respondent remained actively involved in the project in a number of ways after he completed his design and sealed the drawings. The Respondent's role and involvement in this project is confusing to others who are attempting to delineate what the Respondent's responsibilities were at different stages of the project's development. Sometimes the Respondent performed engineering functions for the owner-developers such as the approval of shop drawings. At other times, he assisted the contractor in working out code disputes with various city agencies and defended or revised his design. The Respondent also completed the structural inspection for the city on this building, and made any necessary design changes the city deemed were necessary to allow the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. By some means, all of the parties managed to delineate responsibilities throughout the project without any conflicts as to who was ultimately responsible for what in any given stage of development. The Respondent was only called upon when he was needed, and he assisted any of the parties when he was asked to do so. The signed and sealed drawings received by the contractor were submitted by him to the building department as the complete set of plans and specifications. Building department personnel relied on the drawings as the complete building plans. However, other city personnel who had questions concerning the specifications contacted the designer, Respondent Wunder. Any questions were resolved to the satisfaction of the city personnel prior to permit approval. For example, when the Fire Marshall had questions concerning whether construction would comply with the Standard Fire Prevention Code, National Fire Codes (NFPA) and the Life Safety Code 101, he discussed the matter with the Respondent. The Fire Marshall was given the Respondent's specification booklet that contained more information on the building materials than what was contained on the plans. Based upon the review of these specifications in addition to the drawings, the project was approved for permit by the Fire Marshall as long as the special conditions listed by him on a separate sheet were met. A permit was issued to construct the building according to the drawings and the additional specifications reviewed by city personnel on May 5, 1982. The contractor was never advised during his ongoing interactions with Respondent Wunder, the owner-developers or city personnel that separate sets of specifications existed which were part of the designer's plans for the project. The contractor relied on the construction drawings, the Respondent's approval of shop drawings prepared by manufacturer's before the structural items were fabricated for placement in the building, the outcome of his own discussions with city personnel about the application and interpretation of various codes as well as Respondent's discussions, and Respondent's structural inspections of the project. Based upon the knowledge and materials obtained by this contractor throughout the project, he was able to construct the building and obtain a certificate of occupancy for the owner-developers. The separate sets of specifications were not provided by the Respondent or the city through its records at hearing because these items were lost, destroyed or stolen from the city and the Respondent years prior to the filing of the charges by the Department. The deficiency in the records was not the fault of the city or the Respondent. Wherever deficiencies alleged by the Department as to design could be resolved in separate specifications, it has been determined that the Respondent did in fact supply this information in additional specification booklets as part of the plan for Plaza 1300. On Sheet S1 of the signed and sealed drawings, the Footing Schedule fails to call for anchor bolts at the base of steel columns in Footings (1,2,4) CB and 7 B-C. Ordinarily, this omission is contrary to the exercise of due care and fails to exhibit due regard for the principles of professional engineering because anchor bolts are required for the columns to function. It is careless to assume a contractor will use the right number and size anchor bolts. In this case, however, the Respondent created a separate specification, approved the shop drawings before the columns and the anchor bolts were delivered for use by the contractor, and inspected the installation of these materials. Any omission of the anchor bolts from the Footing Schedule in the drawings was resolved well before installation of the columns. The Footing Schedule on Sheet S1 calls for dowels at 10 feet on centers in footings supporting masonry walls, but this is inconsistent with the dowel requirements indicated on Sheet S2. This sheet shows the dowels are placed at varying spaces, e.g., some are spaced 46 feet apart, some are 6 feet, 8 feet, 10 feet and 40 feet on centers. Drawings should be consistent as to the information they convey to the contractor. This error could not have been corrected in a separate set of specifications. It resulted in a handwritten entry on the drawings prior to approval by the building department that gave a third alternative as to how the dowels should be placed. The lack of clarity as to dowel placement and the creation of three possible installations was a failure by a professional engineer to use due care in design while performing in an engineering capacity. As this disciplinary proceeding relates only to the design portion of this project, it is unknown if Respondent Wunder was actively involved in the revision accepted by the building department or whether he approved later shop drawings based upon the handwritten entry on the drawings submitted to the building department for approval. The Recommended Bar Details on Sheet S1 of the drawings are ambiguous as they do not specify what portion of the required bottom bars may be stopped short of the supports. The details indicate that some bottom bars are cut off and do not extend into supports, but the number is not specified. An engineer's design must explain which bottom bars extend the full length of the span because the designer is the only one who knows this and he must tell the detailer what he wants. The details cannot be allocated to a fabricator for subsequent approval by the engineer because the bars not needed for moment must be developed in bond beyond the cut off point, according to code requirements. A fabricator would not have the expertise to read the moment diagram and design what the professional engineer's calculations require without specific instructions regarding the bottom bars. Separate specifications would not cure the problem with the ambiguities in the bottom bars because the ambiguities are in the pictures themselves. If the ambiguities could not be clarified in the pictures, they could not logically be clarified with the written word. On Sheet S1, the requirements for top steel reinforcing bars in continuous concrete beams are ambiguous in that the required number and extent of those bars over supports between adjacent beams has not been defined in the drawings. The top bars are detailed in each separate beam with no regard as to how many bars are required between adjacent beams. For example, beams B-1, B-2 and B-3 are adjacent to each other on the second floor, the third floor and the roof. The top reinforcing for beam B-2 does not agree with that of beams B-1 and B-3. If the engineer had a particular area of steel required for this condition, then he has confused the contractor with this detail in the drawings. In this example, the amount of reinforcing varies on the roof beams by 33 percent. The amount of reinforcement should be the same for each bar. The reason this ambiguity could not be resolved in specifications or shop drawings is that the ambiguity is inherent in the design, as represented in its pictorial form. The alleged ambiguities as to Sheet S2 regarding anchor bolts and base plates were resolved in Respondent's favor in a separate specification booklet, and the shop drawings reviewed and accepted by Respondent. His details regarding the stairs were contained in the architectural portion of the drawings in the plans as opposed to the structural drawings. Based upon his design, and his review and approval of the shop drawings presented at hearing, the alleged ambiguities did not exist. The CORRUFORM deck indicated on architectural Sheet A6 is structurally inadequate to safely support code specified loads at the indicated joist spacing. The manufacturer's recommendation, based on an allowable stress of 30,000 PSI on the span of 5 feet is 34 PSF, is a little over one half of the actual load on the deck. The actual load is almost twice what the manufacturer recommends. A separate set of specifications could not correct this deficiency because the properties specified indicate the deck is structurally inadequate to support the required loads set forth on Sheet S1 of the drawings. In Sheet S5 of the drawings, all steel joists specified, except for those marked 8H3, are structurally inadequate to safely support code specified loads, according to the engineering calculations presented at hearing. This deficiency is repeated in the shop drawings. This structural inadequacy fails to exhibit due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles. The 12 WF27 steel beams shown on Sheet S5 lack the moment resisting capacity needed to safely support code specified loads on the roof. The moment resistance required for the roof beam is 81.89 foot kips. The allowable moment capacity for these beams is 68.4 foot kips. This is an inadequate carrying capacity which could not be cured with additional specifications because it is a design error. The roof was redesigned by the Respondent prior to the roof construction. The beam details provided in Sheet S6 are ambiguous in that they fail to define the number and extent of top reinforcing bars required over intermediate supports in continuous concrete members. It appears from the beam schedule that although B-1 joins to B-2 and B-2 joins to B-3, each beam calls for a different number and size of reinforced bars at the connections. This causes confusion as to whether there should be 3, 4 or 7 reinforcing bars intersecting with each other where the beams are supposed to join. Shop drawings and separate specifications would not cure this deficiency as the ambiguity is in the details of the design. In addition to the structural design deficiencies alleged by the Department, Count I of the Third Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that various provisions of the applicable building codes in effect in the City of Cape Coral at the time the plans were sealed were violated in the design created by the Respondent. The Cape Coral Enforcement Board has already determined that there were two rated separate stairways provided to exit the second and third floors of this building, and that the designed stairways met the applicable provisions of the Standard Building Code, as interpreted, applied, and enforced within the City of Cape Coral. The Board also determined that the travel distance to exits and the corridors met the fire, building, zoning, and related technical codes, as they were interpreted and enforced in this municipality. The fire ratings for the elevator glass were in a separate specification book that Respondent Wunder submitted to the Fire Marshall prior to the Fire Marshall's determination that the sealed plans would be approved if the special conditions listed by the Fire Marshall on the drawings were met. These special conditions are missing and cannot be located. It is unknown if these special conditions related to the elevator glass or if the missing specifications were sufficient. The Respondent is found to have complied with the city's code requirements as to the elevator glass in the missing specification. The Cape Coral Enforcement Board found the doors and walls of the exit pathway to be fire rated and in compliance with all fire, building, and related technical codes as interpreted and in force within this municipality. The building materials used were in a separate specification booklet and were used to purchase the materials prior to installation by the contractor. The stairs designed by Respondent Wunder for this building decrease in width in the direction of exit travel. Both the Standard Building Code and the Life Safety Code in effect at the time of the design prohibit a decrease in the width of stairs in the direction of exit travel. The stair landings were found to be in compliance by the Cape Coral Enforcement Board as the applicable codes were interpreted and enforced within the municipality. Winding stairs, although prohibited as an exit stairway by the Standard Building Code, were designed by Respondent Wunder for use as an exit stairway in this commercial building. The riser and tread design completed by Respondent Wunder did not comply with the Life Safety code adopted by the City of Cape Coral. The design error may have been one of the special conditions placed upon the design by the Fire Marshall prior to his approval of the plans for permit. Uniform risers were placed in the building when it was constructed. In the Third Amended Administrative Complaint, the Department alleged that wood trim in exit stairways is prohibited. The Respondent stated in his answer that he was without knowledge of this prohibition. Because the Standard Building Code does allow wood trim if that wood trim meets certain flame spread characteristics and complies with the interior finish requirements, this allegation in the charging document did not sufficiently alert the Respondent as to what he was required to defend against concerning the wood trim. In addition, the Respondent is found to have satisfied code requirements for any wood trim in a separate specification booklet. A manual fire alarm system was not provided by Respondent Wunder as part of his original design. A manual alarm system was made part of the revised drawings on October 31, 1982, which was well after the permit was issued by the municipality. It is unknown if the omission of the manual fire alarm system in the design drawings was an omission, a matter of code interpretation, or whether the system was originally in the separate specification booklet reviewed by the Fire Marshall prior to his approval of the construction plans. This alleged deficiency is resolved in the Respondent's favor upon the determination that the system was in the separate specifications taken from the fire department. The Department's allegations regarding a standpipe system were removed from consideration prior to the taking of evidence in the formal hearing. The Cape Coral Enforcement Board determined that the vertical openings in the floor and roof of this building and the structural system are adequately fire protected under the city's interpretation of fire, building, and other technical codes in force in the city. The handicap accessibility requirements were not met in the drawings completed by Respondent Wunder. During the design phase of the project, the Accessibility by Handicapped Persons Act was in effect in Florida. Even if the restrooms and water fountains in the facility meet the minimum requirements set forth in Section 553.48(2)(h), Florida Statutes, as a result of the separate specifications, the parking space configurations and building access do not meet all of the applicable minimum code requirements. Schooner Cove In 1984, Respondent Wunder had an ongoing business relationship with the architectural firm of Stout & Gerald in Cape Coral, Florida. The architectural firm would hire Respondent Wunder to review the site drainage on the firm's project designs for buildings located on land within the City of Cape Coral. The following procedure was used by the architectural firm when it retained the Respondent in a couple of hundred projects: One of the architects would telephone the Respondent and ask him for a price on a particular number of units and would advise Respondent of the number of lots involved. The Respondent would be told whether the lots were inland or on a canal. Upon receiving this information, the Respondent would give the firm a price quote. When the project progressed to the point where a drainage review was needed, the drawings would be sent to the Respondent. He would either review, review and do some work on them, or say the drainage was all right. The architects would rely upon this review and go forward with finishing the design from that stage to its completion. When the customer needed signed sealed drawings for a building permit, the architect assigned to a particular project would place his seal on the project for the other work. The Respondent would place his seal on the plans as to the site drainage. On October 22, 1984, Respondent Wunder signed and sealed the site plan for a twelve unit condominium project known as Schooner Cove in Cape Coral, Florida. His title block on the site plan indicated "DRAINAGE ONLY" beneath the name "C.A. Wunder Engineering, Inc." The Respondent did not require a survey or a soil test of the site prior to his drainage review of the site plans because of his working professional knowledge of the soil conditions and the undeveloped lots within the City of Cape Coral at the time the site plans were given to him for review. This judgment call was reasonable based upon the architect's site plan and his failure to call anything unusual to Respondent's attention in the preliminary drainage design prepared by the architect. The Respondent did view the site before sealing the drainage design. A drainage design is comprised of calculations, grading and retention. The drainage design for Schooner Cove relied upon the percolation method to dispose of excess water from ten year critical storm events because there is no overflow/outfall capability from the retention areas that collected the excess water. Calculations are part of a drainage design. They should be performed with relation to a site and the drainage layout shown on the site plans. In determining the appropriate calculations, the engineer who places his seal on a site plan as to drainage must establish grades, overflow and how the drainage will be handled on the project. Both pre-construction and post-development conditions at the site must be reviewed. The drainage design at the Schooner Cove project that received the Respondent's engineering seal was not adequate to provide for reasonably anticipated storm water runoff at the site, post-construction, in a ten year critical storm event. The flooding of the retention ponds in such a storm event should have been apparent to a professional engineer who reviewed the plans with due care and due regard for the principles of professional engineering. Mitigating Circumstances The Department did not present any evidence of a previous disciplinary history in this or any other jurisdiction wherein the Respondent has practiced engineering. Many of the deficiencies alleged in the drawings for Plaza 1300 which were created in 1982, have since been reformed by the Respondent within his engineering firm. He no longer prepares separate specification booklets for projects of this size, and he prepares more detailed drawings that do not rely upon his personal supervision and direction after the design phase of the project. These steps were taken by Respondent even before the violations were charged against him in these proceedings. The way in which the drawings were prepared in Plaza 1300 was an unusual practice for Respondent, and was done in reliance upon the owner- developers' representation that Respondent would be responsible for the supervision of the construction of the building as a professional engineer. Some of the deficiencies in the Plaza 1300 project proved by the Department were minor, and were corrected as the project was built. The drainage design deficiencies in the Schooner Cove project can be corrected with a redesign of the drainage system at the site. Aggravating Circumstances Some of the structural design deficiencies in the Plaza 1300 project drawings reveal that the building's deck, columns and beams may not safely support code specified loads if they were built according to the design in the drawings. The owners of the condominiums in the Schooner Cove project must have the drainage redesigned to alleviate the flooding problems at the site. The fact that the complaint alleges multiple counts of the same provision of Chapter 471 cannot be used for enhancement in this case because that provision of the rules regarding disciplinary guidelines was not in effect when either of the violations occurred. The Department did not prove that enhancement of penalties based upon multiple violations was a policy of the Board of Professional Engineers during the time the violations occurred.
Recommendation In determining what penalty should be recommended for Respondent Wunder, the Hearing Officer considered the severity of the offenses, as well as the degree of harm to the consumers and the public. Based upon the foregoing, including all of the information made available to the Hearing Officer regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances, it is recommended: The Respondent Wunder be found guilty of having violated Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I , Paragraph Nine of the Third Amended Administrative Complaint. The Respondent Wunder be found guilty of having violated Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II, Paragraph 15 of the Third Amended Administrative Complaint. Respondent be fined $1,000.00 for each violation for a total of $2,000.00, and receive a letter of reprimand from the Board. The Respondent's license should also be placed on probationary status for a period of three years. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of May, 1991. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5149 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected, plans completed in 1981. Contrary to date on the drawings. See HO #4. Rejected, these were complete drawings. See HO #3. The rest of paragraph 4 is accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #6 and #9. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #24. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #3, #4, #7 and #8. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See Chapter 166, Florida Statutes, Section 6, Art. VIII, Florida Constitution. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #9. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative Accepted. Accepted. See HO #14 and #15. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #3. Rejected. Overbroad. Addressed individually in findings. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #13. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. See HO #18. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #19. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12 and #20. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12 and #20. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #20. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #20. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #3. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #3. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Reject first two sentences. Relates to construction. The rest is accepted. See HO #21. Accepted. See HO #12. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #23. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Not an allegation in the complaint. Rejected. Not an allegation in the complaint. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #3, #7 and #10. Accepted. Rejected. Conclusionary. See HO #3. Rejected. Irrelevant to charges. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11. Rejected. Contrary to facts of this case. See HO #3, #7 and #10. Rejected. Contrary to this particular situation when drawing sealed. See HO #3. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO #21. Accepted. See HO #21. Accepted. See HO #21. Accepted. See HO #22. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #22. Accepted. See HO #23. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #23. Accepted. See HO #23. Accepted. See HO #25. Accepted. See HO #25. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #3. Accepted. 121. Accepted. See HO #25. 122. Rejected. Contrary to fact. 123. Accepted. See HO #15, #17, #18, #21, #22, #23 and #25. 124. Accepted. See response to paragraph 123. 125. Accepted. See response to paragraph 123. 126. Accepted. 127. Accepted. 128. Accepted. See HO #10. 129. Accepted. 130. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 131. Accepted. 132. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 133. Accepted. 134. Accepted. 135. Accepted. 136. Accepted. 137. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 138. Accepted. 139. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 140. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 141. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 142. Accepted. 143. Accepted. 144. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 145. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 146. Accepted. 147. Accepted. 148. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. 149. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. 150. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. 151. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. 152. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. 152(a). Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #28. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #28. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #28. 154(b). Accepted. 155. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. 156. Accepted. See HO #30. 157. Accepted. See HO #30. 158. Accepted. 159. Accepted. 160. Accepted. 161. Accepted. See HO #30. 162. Accepted. 163. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #31. 164. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #31. 165. Accepted. 166. Accepted. See HO #32. 167. Accepted. 168. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #31. 169. Accepted. 170. Accepted. 171. Accepted, but See HO #33. 172. Accepted. 173. Accepted. 174. Accepted. See HO #33. 175. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but see HO #34. Accepted. See HO #35. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #35. Accepted. Rejected. Not proved by clear and convincing evidence. See HO #36. Rejected. Not established fact. See HO #36. 184. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 185. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 186. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 187. Accepted. 188. Rejected. Irrelevant. 189. Rejected. Speculative. 190. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 191. Accepted. 192. Accepted. 193. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 194. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 195. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 196. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 197. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 198. Accepted. 199. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 200. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 201. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #3. 202. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. Rejected. Not alleged in complaint. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. Rejected. Not alleged in complaint. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. 208. Rejected. See HO #3 and #12. 209. Rejected. See HO #3 and #12. 210. Accepted. 211. Accepted. 212. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 213. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 214. Accepted. See HO #39. 215. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #10. 216. Accepted. 217. Accepted. See HO #9. 218. Accepted. See HO #9. 219. Accepted. 220. Accepted. 221. Rejected. Irrelevant. 222. Rejected. Irrelevant. 223. Rejected. Irrelevant. 224. Accepted. See HO #11 and #12. 225. Accepted. 226. Accepted. 227. Accepted. See HO #41. 228. Accepted. See HO #41. 229. Accepted. See HO #40. 230. Accepted. 231. Accepted. See HO #40. 232. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #41. Accepted. See HO #41. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #43. Accepted to critical storm 10-year event standard. Rejected beyond 10-year critical year standard. Accepted. See HO #42. Accepted. See HO #44. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #45. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #45. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #45. Accepted. See HO #45. Accepted. See HO #45. Accepted. See HO #45. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #42. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #43. Accepted. See HO #43. Accepted. See HO #44 and #45. Accepted. See HO #45. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #42. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #8 and #9. Accepted. See HO #9. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Rejected. Argument as opposed to factual determination. Attorney comments are not evidence. Rejected. Improper summary. Rejected. Improper summary. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #14 and #15. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11. Attorney comments not evidence, therefore, that portion is rejected. Rejected. Improper summary. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Attorney comments, not evidence. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, in part. See HO #27 - #39. Those parts rejected are contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO #27 - #39. Accepted. See HO #27. Accepted. See HO #35. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #28. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Unknown, but resolved in Respondent's favor. See HO #36. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #13. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #15. Accepted, as his testimony only. Rejected as finding of fact. Improper summary. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted, but not as to Respondent Wunder's design. Accepted. See HO #27 - #39. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See HO #11 and #12. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Attorney's comments, not evidence. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #43 - #45. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #40. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #40 and #43 - #45. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #43 - #45. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #45. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. 117. Rejected. Speculative. Improper summary. 118. Rejected. Irrelevant. 119. Rejected. Irrelevant. 120. Accepted. 221. Accepted. 222. Rejected. Irrelevant. 223. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #45. 224. Accepted. 225. Accepted. 226. Accepted. 227. Accepted. 228. Accepted. 229. Accepted. Rejected. Weight and sufficiency determination. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #40. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Wings S. Benton, Esquire Post Office Box 5676 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-5676 Diane E. McGill, Esquire TURK & SHIPP, P.A. 4223 Del Prado Boulevard Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Carrie Flynn, Acting Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified building contractor having been issued license No. CE C014020. Be was so licensed and was the qualifier for ARC Construction, Inc. at all times material to this proceeding. On July 25, 1980, Respondent, on behalf of ARC Construction, Inc., contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Richard Doyle to remodel a residence in St. Petersburg. The contract price was $43,180, plus extras of $1,525. Respondent was paid $1,500 initially and received draw payments of $4,318 on August 11, 1980, $8,636 on August 19, 1980, and $10,795 on September 3, 1980. These payments totaled $25,249, or about 58 percent of the basic contract amount and 56 percent of the contract price with add-ons. Respondent was obligated to pay suppliers and acknowledged this responsibility to the complainant, Mr. Richard Doyle, but advised him that he was having cash flow difficulties. Respondent's checks to Scotty's, dated August 10, 1980, for $2,518.28, and August 22, 1980, for $738.99, were dishonored by the bank. His check for approximately $5,000 to Florida Forest Products was likewise returned. Respondent failed to settle these accounts and the complainant was eventually obliged to do so in order to remove the liens on his property. Respondent ceased work on the project in mid-October, 1980, and was terminated by the complainant in January, 1981. At the time Respondent ceased work the project was 50 percent to 80 percent complete.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of April, 1983, 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 29th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James H. Thompson, Esquire 620 Madison Street Suite 2-C Tampa, Florida 33602 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, August T. Nocella, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board (Board), is the agency within Pinellas County, Florida, authorized under Chapter 89-504, Laws of Florida, as amended, to regulate and discipline the licenses of, among others, certified aluminum contractors. Respondent, August T. Nocella (Respondent), is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified aluminum contractor in Pinellas County, Florida, having been issued license C-3197. At times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was doing business as Allied Aluminum, located in St. Petersburg, Florida. In 1997, Ms. Mary J. Pugh had a small screened porch added to her house located at 12855 Gorda Circle West. Approximately two years later, in July 1999, the porch was damaged or destroyed by a storm. Thereafter, Ms. Pugh requested and received a proposal from Allied Aluminum to repair or rebuild the screened porch. On September 1, 1999, Respondent entered into a contract with Ms. Pugh to repair or reconstruct the previously existing screened porch. The contract provided that Respondent would install a new aluminum roof to replace the damaged existing screened porch roof, install gutters and trim, replace 13 feet of valance, replace the screen, and install a new wall front. The contract noted that a riser wall was required for "proper roof pitch." The contract price was $2,300.00, with $1,000.00 to be paid as a down payment and the remaining $1,300.00 to be paid upon completion of the project. Ms. Pugh paid Allied Aluminum in accordance with the terms of the contract. She made the first payment of $1,000.00 on September 1, 1999, and made the final payment of $1,300.00 on September 22, 1999, upon Respondent's completing the job. On or about September 16, 1999, Respondent obtained a permit for the repair or reconstruction of the screened porch at Ms. Pugh's house. Respondent began the project on or about September 15, 1999, and completed the job on September 22, 1999. Section 105.6 of the Standard Building Code, 1997 Edition, as amended,(Standard Building Code) requires local building officials, "upon notification from the permit holder or his agent," to make a final inspection of a building after the building is completed and ready for occupancy. In order to comply with the Standard Building Code, it was the responsibility of the permit holder, in this case, Respondent, to call local officials for a final building inspection. Upon completion of the inspection, a building official would then notify the permit holder of "any violations which must be corrected in order to comply with the technical codes." Respondent failed to notify building officials that the Pugh project was completed and ready for occupancy and, thus, ready for final inspection by appropriate building officials. As a result of Respondent's failure to call for a final inspection, building officials never inspected Respondent's work on Ms. Pugh's screened porch and made no determination as to whether the project complied with the applicable technical codes. In July 2000, during a storm, the roof of Ms. Pugh's screen porch collapsed. Relying on statements of unnamed contractors, Ms. Pugh believes that the roof collapsed because it did not have the proper pitch. Respondent attributes the collapse of the roof to the gutters being blocked with leaves. Despite these assertions no evidence was presented at hearing to establish the cause of the roof's collapsing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a final order: (1) finding that Respondent failed to obtain a satisfactory inspection as alleged in Count One, and is guilty of the offenses described in Chapter 89-504, Subsections 24, (2)(d), (j), and (n), Laws of Florida; (2) imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for the foregoing offenses; and (3) dismissing Count Two of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 28th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Don Crowell, Esquire Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 310 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Rodney S. Fischer, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road Suite 102 Largo, Florida 33773-5116 August T. Nocella 1017 Robinson Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
