The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent's license as a registered pool contractor should be revoked or otherwise penalized based on the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, William Losciale, was a licensed registered pool contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RP-0032951, by the State of Florida, and was the qualifier of Lynn Pools. On or about October 2, 1987, John J. Kerry entered into a contract with Respondent d/b/a Lynn Pools for the Respondent to construct a pool and screen enclosure on Mr. Kerry's property located at 633 South Little John Street in Inverness, Florida. The total cost of the pool and enclosure was $19,600.00. During construction various problems developed. Among them were delays in completion, the failure to obtain the proper permits, the installation of an inadequate and improper filter, the delayed removal of excavated dirt, the gouging up of the homeowner's yard, and the improper positioning of the septic tank after relocation. At the time the pool deck was being designed, the homeowner told the Respondent that it appeared to the homeowner that the deck was slanted towards the house and would cause flooding problems. The Respondent told the homeowner that the Respondent knew what he was doing and no such problem would develop. During construction of the pool, the homeowner pointed out to the Respondent that it appeared that the pool was being constructed higher than the patio which, if true, would also cause flooding problems. Again, the Respondent denied that the pool was being constructed higher than the patio and that flooding problems would occur. During construction, Respondent removed a rain downspout which, prior to construction, was located between the patio and the screen enclosure. The pool patio was then poured without replacing the downspout underneath the patio. As a result of one or more of the foregoing conditions, the homeowner's house was almost flooded on one occasion. Thereafter, the homeowner had to put a drain hole in the patio in an attempt to prevent future flooding. Since completion of the pool, when it rains, rainwater flows down the patio towards the house. Additionally, rainwater is directed from the roof through the gutter onto the patio towards the house and occasionally water overflows from the pool towards the house. While the house has not been flooded, the pool deck floods during certain rains. During construction, the Respondent removed all of the ground wires off electrical fixtures located in the homeowner's yard without replacing them after being requested to replace them by the homeowner. After the deck was poured, it was covered with kool deck. The kool deck was soft and had indentations in it. The Respondent agreed with the homeowner that the deck was bad and that the homeowner should not accept it. The Respondent the replaced the kool deck with river rock. The deck now has ripples in it. The Respondent tried to charge the homeowner an additional $1,200 for the river rock. The homeowner had the river rock installed for an additional $850.00 by a third party. Prior to entering into the contract for the pool and enclosure with Respondent, the home owner told the Respondent that he wanted the biggest water heater available to heat the pool water instantly. When the water heater was being installed, the homeowner questioned the Respondent whether or not the water heater was big enough to meet the homeowner's requirements. The Respondent said that it was. After installation, the heater did not come close to meeting the home owner's requirements. The homeowner then called the manufacturer of the heater and was told that the installed heater was too small. The Respondent, at the homeowner's request, then changed the heater to one that would supposedly heat the pool water faster. It did not. The homeowner then called the heating company again and was told that the new heater was only one size up from the original heater and still would not meet the homeowner's requirements. That heater remains on the homeowner's property and does not meet the homeowner's requirements. Mr. Kerry paid the Respondent $5,500.00 on December 7, 1987, which made a total of $19,000.00 the homeowner had paid the Respondent. The homeowner has paid more than $600.00 in repairing and/or correcting work that was the obligation of the Respondent. Correction of all these problems has been to the homeowner's financial detriment. In the latter part of December, 1987, the Respondent entered into an oral contract with All Wright Aluminum to have All Wright Aluminum install an L- shaped pool enclosure over the pool at the Kerry residence. The total contract price was $5,185.10. Payment for the construction was due within ten days of completion which occurred on January 6, 1988. All Wright Aluminum received a $1,000.00 payment from the Respondent on or about February 2, 1988. That payment was a check from a customer of the Respondent, made payable to the Respondent's order in partial payment on pool repairs which the Respondent made for that customer. The Respondent endorsed that check and made it payable to All Wright Aluminum. On February 15, 1988, All Wright Aluminum in compliance with the mechanic's lien law, filed a valid claim of lien against Mr. Kerry's property in the amount of $4,185.10 for failure of the Respondent to pay All Wright for the construction of the pool enclosure. On May 10, 1988, the Respondent paid All Wright Aluminum $1,000.00 towards that lien. On September 16, 1988, the Respondent paid All Wright $2,000.00 towards the satisfaction of that lien from his personal account. On September 16, 1988, the Respondent gave All Wright Aluminum a personal promissory note in the amount of $1,135.10 for the balance of the lien amount. On that date All Wright Aluminum satisfied its previously filed claim of lien. Respondent has previously been disciplined by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order and therein penalize the Respondent, William Losciale, as follows: Assess a fine of $750 for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(h) Assess a fine of $750 for the violation of Sections 489.129(1)(j) , 489.105(4), and 489.119. Assess a fine of $1500 for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(m) Suspend the license of Respondent for a period of six (6) months. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 19th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-3296 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-20 (1-20). COPIES FURNISHED: Jack M. Larkin Attorney at Law 806 Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 William Losciale 6491 Mobile Street Inverness, Florida 32652 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact The following facts, a through d, were stipulated to by the Petitioner and Respondent and are found to be true facts by the undersigned Hearing Officer. Respondent is a registered pool contractor having been issued License No. RP0033408. Respondent did not qualify Acme Building Company or Acme Pools Incorporated until October, 1981. In October, 1981, Respondent qualified Acme Pools Incorporated. On November 20, 1978, the Respondent executed and signed a contract with Mr. and Mrs. C. S. Jarrell to construct a swimming pool at the Jarrell residence. The contract price was $6,500.00. The named party to the contract with the Jarrells was Acme Pools. On September 8, 1979, the Respondent signed and executed a contract with Mr. and Mrs. James Costin to construct a swimming pool at the Costin residence. The contract price was $6,835.00. The named party to the contract with the Costins was Acme Pools. Subsequent to the execution of the contract, the Jarrell swimming pool was completed by the Respondent. Shortly following completion, the swimming pool began leaking and continues to leak. Water must be added to the pool daily. The Jarrell pool was constructed with sidewalls consisting of pre-cast concrete panels which are imbedded in the floor of the pool. The leaks occurred as a result of inadequate back bracing behind the panels. This is a construction defect. When they discovered that their pool was leaking, the Jarrells immediately contacted the Respondent. The Respondent attempted to repair the leaks on two different occasions. Both attempted repairs were unsuccessful. Respondent became aware, after construction of the Jarrell pool, that there was something basically wrong with the construction of the Jarrell pool, but the Respondent did not accomplish a permanent repair of the problem. Subsequent to executing the contract with Mr. and Mrs. Costin, the Respondent completed a swimming pool at the Costin residence. Within a day after the Costin pool was completed, Mr. Costin noticed that the pool was losing water. The pool had a substantial leak, losing as much as four to five inches per day of water in the 16 feet by 32 feet pool. Mr. Costin, after discovering the leak, immediately notified the Respondent. The Respondent made several attempted repairs of the leaks. Some of the repairs temporarily stopped the leaking, but no permanent repair of the leaks has been accomplished. The last attempted repair by the Respondent was in September, 1981. During construction of the Costin pool, the Respondent performed the electrical work on the pool. No electrical permit was obtained from Okaloosa County building officials as required by Okaloosa County Ordinance No. 75-4. It was Respondent's responsibility to obtain or make certain that his subcontractor obtained the necessary permits for construction of the Costin swimming pool. During construction, Mr. Costin and the Respondent discussed permits and the Respondent did obtain the building permit for the construction. The Respondent was aware some type of electrical permit was required. In August, 1978, Respondent purchased Acme Building Company and did business as Acme Pools until October, 1981. Respondent, prior to October, 1981, ran a fictitious name ad in the newspaper for Acme Pools and registered Acme Pools with the county but did not qualify Acme Pools. During the period August, 1978, to October, 1981, the Respondent was licensed individually as a registered pool contractor. Respondent had been in business less than one year when he constructed the Jarrell and Costin pools. The construction method of using pre-cast concrete panels is more likely to crack and leak than other available methods of swimming pool construction. The Respondent now constructs only fiberglass pools. He no longer builds the type of pools constructed for Mr. and Mrs. Jarrell and Mr. and Mrs. Costin.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I and II and that the Board impose upon the Respondent an administrative fine of $1,500.00. It is further recommended that Counts III, IV, and V of the administrative complaint be dismissed and that the Respondent be found not guilty of the violations alleged in those counts. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Henry C. Hollenbeck 405 Marshall Court Ft. Walton Beach, Florida Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact On October 10, 1979, the Respondent entered into a written swimming pool contract with Mr. and Mrs. Stellato, wherein the Respondent agreed to construct a swimming pool for them on their property in accordance with the plans and specifications attached to the contract. Among other things this swimming pool contract provided for the payment of a total purchase price of $11,225.00 to be paid in the following manner: ten percent to be paid at the signing of the contract. fifty percent to be paid upon the installation of the tank. thirty-five percent to be paid upon completion of the base decking and screen enclosure. five percent, or the balance of the purchase price, to be paid when the filter system was put in operation. Further, this contract provided that if the purchasers of the swimming pool failed to pay the purchase price in accordance with the prescribed schedule, the contractor reserved the right to suspend all work on the swimming pool, and to suspend all warranty work due after completion of the pool. During the month of February, 1980, the Respondent, acting through his duly authorized representatives, did all acts necessary to cause the filter system of the subject swimming pool to become operable, and requested that the Stellatos pay the five percent balance due under the contract. The Stellatos failed to make this final payment, claiming that there was a problem with the pool decking. In response to this complaint the Respondent personally met with the Stellatos, and agreed to cover the problem area of the decking with Chattahoochee River Rock at no cost to the Stellatos. In exchange for this agreement the Stellatos agreed to pay the balance due under the contract. Thereupon, the Respondent installed Chattahoochee River Rock over a substantial portion of the decking at his own expense. During the installation of this Chattahoochee River Rock, Mrs. Stellato contacted the Respondent by phone and demanded that he also install, at his own expense, Chattahoochee River Rock over an existing concrete patio area that had not been built by the Respondent. The Respondent refused to incur this additional expense, because it was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. Thereafter, the Stellatos again failed to pay the balance due under the contract. The subject swimming pool was inspected by an inspector for Palm Bay, and the City issued a certificate of occupancy in June of 1980. The pool was ready for a certificate of occupancy in February of 1980 except for the removal of one pile of dirt that still remained on the premises. All other aspects of the pool construction passed inspection in February of 1980 when the pool filter system was activated. Since February Of 1980, the Stellatos have had full use of the subject swimming pool. Except for alleging that some low spots remain in the pool decking, the Petitioner offered no substantial evidence of any other significant problem with the Respondent's construction. Notwithstanding the failure of the Stellatos to pay the balance of the contract price in a timely manner, the Respondent performed warranty work on the subject swimming pool after February of 1980. During the course of this warranty work the Respondent added chlorine chemicals to the pool because the Stellatos had failed to properly maintain it up to June of 1980. Another claim concerning a leaking pipe on the pool sweep did not manifest itself until April of 1981, after the expiration of the one year warranty period afforded by the Respondent to all customers. The Petitioner offered no evidence to show that the leak in this pipe was caused by the Respondent. Notwithstanding the expiration of the warranty period, and the lack of evidence to show that the leak was caused by the Respondent, he did send an employee to the job site and stopped the water leak, at no cost to the Stellatos. On several occasions when the Respondent or his employees attempted to satisfy the complaints of the Stellatos, they had to leave the job site because of the abusive language and conduct directed toward them by the Stellatos. In one instance Mr. Stellato ordered the Respondent's employees from the job site and prevented performance of any work under the contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint, as amended, against John W. Thornett be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 9 day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1982.
The Issue Did Respondent commit the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated September 1, 2000, and if so, what discipline is appropriate?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Board is the agency within Pinellas County, Florida, which is given the authority under Chapter 89-504, Laws of Florida, as amended, to regulate and discipline the license of, among others, certified commercial pool/spa contractors. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified commercial pool/spa contractor in Pinellas County, Florida, having been issued license C-2578 (RP0023937). On September 9, 1999, Respondent entered into a contract with Louis Alberto and Margaret Alberto (Albertoes). The contract provided for Respondent to: Remove algae and dirt from Sand Pebble deck. Resurface entire Pebble Deck (1132 sq. ft.) with Flo-Crete. Retexture entire surface and seal with color of choice. Place random pattern. Pressure clean existing deck and acid wash. The contract price was $3,600.00 with 50 percent to be paid at the beginning of the contract and the balance to be paid upon completion of the contract. Although it is not covered in the contract, both parties agreed that Respondent had verbally agreed to give the Albertoes his personal five-year warranty on the work he was to perform under the contract, which included covering the pool sand pebble deck with Flo Crete. Design Flo-Crete (Flo-Crete) is a product manufactured by Seamco Laboratories, Inc. (Seamco) and used in covering pool decks. Seamco's position on covering a sand pebble deck with Flo-Crete is as follows: Please be advised that as a manufacturer Seamco Laboratories, Inc., does not recommend going over river rock (stone and epoxy systems) with their product Design Flo-Crete. Going over epoxy stone would encapsulate bacteria, which could cause gases that could cause disruption of the Design Flo-Crete. Seamco is aware that some of their dealers install Flo-Crete over river rock successfully. However, Seamco's official position is as stated above. Respondent was aware of Seamco's position on the installation of Flo-Crete over river rock at the time he entered into the contract with the Albertoes and advised the Albertoes that Seamco did not recommend going over river rock (stone and epoxy systems) with Flo-Crete. However, Respondent advised the Albertoes that he had previously used Flo-Crete over river rock successfully on several jobs. Respondent's did not seal the sides of the deck which allowed the gases created by the encapsulated bacteria to escape through the sides. There is no mention in the contract that Seamco would warrant Flo-Crete under any condition. Furthermore, Respondent did not verbally advise the Albertoes that Seamco would warrant Flo-Crete under these conditions. Subsequent to entering into the contract, Respondent proceeded to: (a) remove the algae and dirt from the sand pebble deck by pressure cleaning and acid wash; (b) resurface entire pebble deck with Flo-Crete; and (c) retexture entire surface and seal with color of choice. There were some minor problems but those were corrected. However, the Albertoes were not satisfied with the new textured surface because it tended to show scuff marks and the color was too light. In an attempt to satisfy the Albertoes, Respondent put lines on the deck by applying tape and painting over the entire surface and then removing the tape leaving the lines. Also, in a further attempt to satisfy the Albertoes, Respondent applied a combination of two colors to darken the original color. However, the original color (bone white) continued to bleach through and was not satisfactory to the Albertoes. At this point, Respondent became convinced that he could not satisfy the Albertoes. Apparently, the Albertoes' dissatisfaction with the color of the deck resulted in Respondent not being allowed to apply the polyurethane sealer to the deck. In any event, the polyurethane sealer was never applied to the deck surface. Subsequently, the Albertoes contracted with another contractor to tear out the existing sand pebble deck and refinish the deck to their specifications for a contract price of approximately $3,600.00 There is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent's method of applying Flo-Crete over the sand pebble deck resulted in the disruption of the Flo-Crete or was the cause of Respondent being unable to satisfy the Albertoes as to the color and texture of the deck.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: William W. Owens, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board Suite 102 11701 Belcher Road Largo, Florida 33773-5116 Robert W. Dobson 8965 60th Street, North Pinellas Park, Florida 33782 Kathleen O'Dowd, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Don Crowell, Esquire Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 310 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756
Findings Of Fact Melnikoff is the holder of a certified pool contractor's license, having been issued license No. CP C032540. Melnikoff used this license to qualify Ken-Mel Enterprises and license no. CB C029067 was issued to Melnikoff qualifying Ken-Mel Enterprises. Ken-Mel entered into a contract with John and Edythe Milton to construct a residential pool at 7336 Pineville Drive, Jacksonville, Florida. Melnikoff applied for a building permit with the City of Jacksonville to construct the pool for the Miltons. His application included a set of plans and a site plan to be approved by the City of Jacksonville. The City of Jacksonville issued a building permit and provided an inspection sign-off card to be placed at the residence where the pool was to be constructed. Melnikoff and Ken-Mel constructed the pool and were paid in full. Melnikoff failed to request or obtain any inspections of the pool construction. This is a violation of the City of Jacksonville Building Code, Section 320.504. The pool is constructed in such a way that it is flawed, deficient and hazardous. Specifically, the water slide is hooked to a potable water system and to the hot water, which is both a serious code violation and a serious and hazardous condition. The water slide is positioned improperly and attached incorrectly, such that there is a danger of injury and this is a hazardous condition. The marcite is very rough and has started to peel away from the gunnite. The marcite is stained from the finish of the pool deck. The slurry from the gunnite and pool deck is buried near the pool and is improperly disposed of. Persons are mildly shocked when touching the railing in the pool, indicating that the pool is not properly bonded, which is a hazardous condition. The pool is not level or symmetrical and there are many imperfections in the continuous curve of the wall. Steel reinforcing bars are actually protruding through the concrete near the top of the pool. Building Code requires that there be a minimum coverage of 1 1/2" of concrete. The ceramic tile is falling off the wall and it is a very poor ceramic tile job. The expansion joints are improperly placed. The main drain cover has not been fastened down, which is a very dangerous situation and a code violation. There is no means or plan for discharging water from the pool, in violation of code. Part of the deck drain is under the slab of the Milton's house which is a serious problem. The pool is deeper than the plans indicated, in violation of the building code. The pool deck is very rough in places, does not drain away from the pool, and is cracked from improper compaction and improper placement of expansion materials. All of these defects and hazardous conditions establish that Melnikoff was grossly negligent and incompetent in the construction of this pool.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order finding Steve A. Melnikoff guilty of the violations charged and revoking Melnikoff's license as a certified pool contractor. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 June, 1988. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-0567 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 3-5(3); 6(4); 7(5); and 8 & 9 (6) COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Attorney at Law 1343 E. Tennessee St. Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Steven A. Melnikoff 710 Rosedale Drive Stephens City, VA 22655 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The basic allegations of the complaint having been proven or admitted, the sole question at hearing was one of mitigation.
Findings Of Fact Rivers is a licensed general and a licensed pool contractor. All the complaints against Rivers arose in relationship to his pool contracting activities. Rivers did begin construction of two pools in Levy County without first obtaining a building permit as required by the Levy County Building Code, a certified copy of which was identified by the Levy County Building official. Rivers paid a late fee in both instances. Although in one instance all inspections were made, in the second instance no inspections were possible because construction was essentially complete when the construction was discovered by the Levy County Building official. Rivers did fail to pay materialmen on two pools although he received payment in full for the jobs. His failure resulted in materialmen's liens being placed on the property, although Rivers provided each owner a written statement that all bills had been paid. Rivers admitted that he had not paid the materialmen because he lacked funds to do so. His contract with both parties for construction of a specified pool contained a provision stating that he would provide them an affidavit that all labor and material had been paid prior to receipt of final payment on the contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Residential Pool Contractor's License and General Contractor's License of Norman Rivers be suspended for a minimum of ninety (90) days and that thereafter be reinstated upon his satisfying the Board of his ability to meet his financial obligations. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488 9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. J.K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Mr. Norman Rivers 1710 South East 19th Street Ocala, Florida 32670
The Issue The issues in this cause are those promoted by the filing of an Administrative Complaint by the Department of Professional Regulation accusing the Respondent of various violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Should the Respondent be found guilty, this action contemplates the imposition of a penalty against Respondent's license as a commercial pool contractor in Florida.
Findings Of Fact 1. Respondent, at all times relevant to this inquiry, was a registered commercial pool contractor having been issued license number RP0041725. This is a license issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. 2..On November 18, 1983, Respondent entered into a contract under the name Kennedy Pool and Construction Co., an entity for whom Respondent serves as a qualifying agent in the commercial pool contracting business. This contract was with one Marie Robertson; however, the contract was not for the purpose of construction of a pool. It was for construction of a 20' by 24' block garage. This structure was to be free-standing and would be located adjacent to Ms. Robertson's residence, which is also used in her business. Petitioner's exhibit number 2 is a copy of the contract and reflects the $4,800.00 contract price. Robertson has paid the full amount of the contract and the garage construction was completed in January, 1984. Respondent personally built the garage. Respondent built the garage without obtaining a building permit from the City of Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent also failed to submit plans and specifications to the City of Jacksonville, which set forth the design and placement of this garage structure. Having failed to request a permit or to submit plans and specifications, Respondent made no request of the City of Jacksonville Building Department to inspect the construction related to the garage. Finally, Respondent in his licensure with the State of Florida, and license recognition with the City of Jacksonville, was not authorized to serve as a building contractor engaging in the construction of structures such as the garage in question. The project at issue entailed the pouring of a foundation; the erection of block walls the erection of a roof truss system and the installation of a roof covering of shingles. All of these items were beyond the license recognition which respondent held with the State of Florida and the City of Jacksonville. When the City of Jacksonville discovered the existence of the garage, it made the owner aware that the structure was in violation of the City of Jacksonville Building Code related to the need for obtaining a building permit, and the fact that the garage structure violated the city's set-back requirement. This later item pertained to the fact that given the commercial utilization of the property, on the part of Ms. Robertson, the garage was too close to the city street. As a consequence, Robertson was put to the inconvenience of obtaining and paying for a building permit and gaining a variance from the set-back requirements mentioned. Had the City of Jacksonville been presented with building plans and specifications, this would have alerted the city to the fact that the placement of the garage was too close to the street. When confronted with her difficulty, Ms. Robertson contacted the Respondent to gain his assistance in obtaining a building permit. The Respondent indicated that it was her problem and said that he could not get a permit because the property was business property and not private property. The Respondent was charged by the City of Jacksonville through a notice of violation of local zoning requirements related to the failure to obtain a building permit and the fact that the Respondent was not licensed by the City of Jacksonville to construct a garage at the Robertson residence. Attempts at serving the violations were not successful in that calls to the Respondent and issuance of notice of violations through certified mail, return receipt requested, were not acknowledged by the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Ronald B. Haendiges is a registered general contractor in the State of Florida holding license number RG 0039437. The Respondent was so licensed at all times material to the Administrative Complaint and at the time the Administrative Complaint issued. On May 29, 1981, the Respondent contracted with Mary Raney to put into operation a pool located at 479 East Main Street, Longwood, Florida, for a contract price of $4,025. Said pool had been partially floated out of the ground. The contract between Raney and the Respondent specifically provided that the Respondent would perform the following: Knock off existing tile; Reform beam; Reset new level of skimmer; Pressure-test existing plumbing and repair as needed (but not to exceed $300 of extra cost); Reform new deck area (450 square feet) Fill as needed; Place wire mesh in new deck area and pour new deck; Retile waterline, 6 by 6 bullnose; Re-(illegible) cracked area on bottom of pool; Recement pool with Pool-tight; Put cool deck topping on new deck area; Reform and pour new steps and tile step edge with matching tile; Replace pump and motor with new comparable. The Respondent commenced work in workmanlike fashion on or about May 29, 1981. As work progressed on the pool, he received various payments from Raney in accordance with their contract. The Respondent received a total of $2,750 of the $4,025 contract price. On or about July 13, 1981, the Respondent, nearing completion of his work, filled the swimming pool with water. At that time, additional cracks and leaks developed in the sides and bottom of the Raney pool. when these cracks developed, Raney refused to pay any of the balance of the contract price, or a total of $1,275. At that time, all work covered under the contract was completed, to include reinforcing the cracked areas with steel, except that the pool deck had not been poured. A square hole at one end of the pool and a larger area at the shallow end had not been finished. The cracks in the pool were created when the pool was filled with water because a void had been created beaten the bottom of the pool and the foundation of the pool when the pool floated up out of the ground. when the weight of the water was placed in the pool, it broke out the bottom of the pool. The problem with this void was not anticipated by Raney, the pool's owner, or the Respondent. Harvey's Bobcat Service provided fill dirt and labor to the Respondent for repairs on the pool, which were not paid for, and a lien of $382 was filed against the Raney property. Dove Henson performed marcite work and pool decking on the Raney pool for the Respondent. The Respondent was to pay Henson $400 for the work performed and, as of the date of the hearing, had not done so. The Respondent purchased Pool-tight on two occasions from Contractor's Supply of Orlando, Florida. On July 8, 1981, the Respondent purchased $275.60 worth of Pool-tight. On July 11, 1981, the Respondent purchased another $78 worth of Pool-tight from Contractor's Supply. On July 10, 1981, the Respondent paid $275.60 on this bill. This left a remaining balance of $78 due Contractor's Supply, which was not paid. Raney subsequently contracted with another contractor to repair the pool's bottom. This contract between Mary Raney and Reid Baker provided that Baker would perform the following work for a contract price of $2,780: Remove cracked bottom; Install or replace dead line and rock bottom and steel; Re-Gunite bottom and walls where necessary; Check all piping and repair; Marcite entire pool; Furnish and install grab rails; Recoat cool deck where necessary for a first-class job; Reinstall owner's filter, pump, valve, etc.; Clean up pool debris. The contract between Raney and the Respondent did not call for the replacement of the bottom of the pool, and the replacement of the bottom of the pool was not anticipated in said contract. The standard building code of the City of Longwood requires that a contractor obtain a building permit prior to construction or repair of a pool.
Recommendation Having found the Respondent, Ronald B. Haendiges, not guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes, the Hearing Officer recommends that this charge be dismissed. Having found the Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by failing to obtain a permit as required by the local building codes, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Respondent receive a letter of reprimand. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 15th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Ronald B. Haendiges Post Office Box 388 Winter Park, Florida 32790 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed general contractor and pool contractor. He is employed by Sally Dysart, Inc., and is currently the qualifying contractor for that company. Additionally, Respondent has served as qualifier for ARK Swimming Pool Service, Inc. On June 6, 1981, Sally Dysart, Inc., contracted with Theresa Pica to construct a swimming pool at her North Lauderdale residence. On June 9, 1981, Respondent obtained a permit from the City of North Lauderdale to construct the Pica pool. The permit indicated that ARK Swimming Pool Service, Inc., was the contractor. The contract specified that the pool would measure 16 x 32 x 3 x 6 1/2 feet, with stainless steel walls. The contract allowed "minor variations in dimensions . . ." and provided that, "Dysart is authorized to use its discretion in making changes or additions if the customer is not immediately available." The pool as installed was 8 feet rather than 6 1/2 feet deep, and the walls were of aluminum rather than stainless steel. These changes were not approved by Theresa Pica and she complained to Petitioner regarding these changes and other problems which are not relevant to the charges herein. This was an 18 inch change in pool depth and could not be considered a minor variation in dimensions, nor could the change in materials be considered insignificant. Respondent should have, but did not, obtain the owner's concurrence before substituting the 8 foot aluminum pool for the 6 1/2 foot steel pool, which the contract called for. This installation was also held to be in violation of Broward County Ordinance Section 9-14(b)(9), by the local board having jurisdiction. Respondent was not properly registered as the qualifying agent for Sally Dysart, Inc., at the time of this project. He was registered as the qualifier for Ark beginning in 1977, but his application to qualify Sally Dysart, Inc., was not received by Petitioner until November 1981 and not issued until December 1981. A Julius Kaplan was also a qualifier for Sally Dysart, Inc., but his application was not received by Petitioner until October 1981. Sally Dysart, Inc., was therefore not qualified by a licensed pool contractor at the time this company undertook the Pica project. The permit was improperly drawn on Ark Pool Service, Inc., by Respondent since Ark was not a party to the Pica contract. Respondent demonstrated that the administrator for Sally Dysart, Inc., was attempting to secure a qualifier for this company between April and December 1981. Thus, while some effort had been made to qualify Sally Dysart, Inc., this had not been accomplished at the time the Pica project was undertaken. Sally Dysart, Inc., contracted with James J. Mirrione to install a spa for him at his residence in Boca Raton. The permit was obtained by Respondent on behalf of Sally Dysart, Inc., on April 23, 1981. As noted above, Respondent was not a qualifier for Sally Dysart until December 1981. No final inspection of the Mirrione installation was ever made. Respondent believed that officer personnel at Sally Dysart, Inc., had arranged for such inspection, but it was either not requested or requested but not performed. On June 25, 1981, Warren Schober contracted with Sally Dysart, Inc., to construct a pool at his Miami residence. He negotiated the contract with a Milton Wolf who he understood to be the sales manager for Sally Dysart, Inc. The project was completed, but Schober encountered problems with a defective light and leaks in the pool. The difficulties were eventually corrected and Schober is now satisfied with the installation. In late August 1981, Milton Wolf agreed to sell Dr. Ronald Scott a swimming pool for $5,970. Scott made an initial payment of $3,970 to Milton Wolf by cashier's check dated September 8, 1981. Scott believed he was dealing with Sally Dysart, Inc., since Wolf held himself out as a representative of that company. Although he had some reservations about making the check payable to Milton Wolf personally, he had contacted a Better Business Bureau to determine that Sally Dysart, Inc., was a reputable company. Further, Wolf was available when he telephoned him at the Sally Dysart, Inc., offices. Sally Dysart, Inc., later disclaimed the Wolf agreement but offered to honor it if Scott would turn over the balance due. However, Scott rejected this offer and it was later withdrawn. He did not receive the pool or return of his initial payment. The evidence did not establish whether or not Sally Dysart, Inc., approved the contract for sale of the pool negotiated by Wolf. However, there was no construction contemplated and therefore no active involvement by Respondent in his capacity as construction supervisor. On July 31, 1981, Milton Wolf, on behalf of Sally Dysart, Inc., contracted with Mr. William D. Black for the sale and installation of a swimming pool at the latter's Miami resident. By check dated August 28, 1981, Black made an initial payment of $4,585 to Wolf. Black left the payee portion of the check blank at Wolf's request on the representation that he would use a stamp to supply the Dysart firm name. Wolf later filled in his own name, cashed the check and absconded. Black had no reason to distrust Wolf as he had communicated with Wolf at Sally Dysart, Inc., and had checked on the company through the Better Business Bureau. Wolf held himself out as sales manager and this was not repudiated by Sally Dysart, Inc., until after Wolf absconded. Respondent obtained a permit for the Black project on October 13, 1981, and some of the initial approvals were made. However, by letter dated September 22, 1981, Sally Dysart, Inc. (by its president, Sally Dysart), advised Black that the company would attempt to complete the project only if he would pay the balance of all payments due. This letter also disclaimed responsibility for Wolf's representations. In response, Black demanded that Sally Dysart, Inc., honor the contract and proposed that remaining payments be placed in escrow pending satisfactory completion. This proposal was rejected, and Black did not obtain the pool nor was his $4,585 "deposit" returned. Respondent sought to establish that Milton Wolf was not authorized to act on behalf of Sally Dysart, Inc., but that he was merely present in the Dysart offices as a potential business partner. His contact with customers was purportedly limited to investigation of leads and company business potential. However, the testimony of a former Dysart employee established that Wolf did make sales and brought in cash receipts to the company prior to his defalcation. Therefore, regardless of any private understanding between Sally Dysart, Inc., and Milton Wolf, the latter was holding himself out to the public as a company representative with the knowledge and approval of Sally Dysart, Inc.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's contractor licenses for a period of ninety (90) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May 1984.
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department, is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Chapters 20, 455 and 489. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Mike H. Kargar, d/b/a Kargar Construction, Inc., was licensed as a Florida State Certified Building Contractor and a Florida State Certified Pool/Spa Contractor, having been issued license numbers CBC 37867 and CPC 52530 respectively. His licensure status for each license is designated as "Current, Active." The Department's records establish that at no time material hereto did Kargar Construction apply for or obtain a Certificate of Authority as a Contractor Qualified Business in the State of Florida. On or about July 14, 1999, Respondent, doing business as Premier Pools, entered into a contract with Ronald and Gina Steger (the Stegers) for construction of a residential swimming pool to be located at 466 Champagne Circle, Port Orange, Florida. The contract price was $26,469.00. Respondent was paid in full by the Stegers for the construction of the swimming pool at their residence. While Respondent verbally informed Mr. Steger about the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, the contract does not contain a written statement explaining the consumer's rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Respondent has constructed thousands of residential pools during his career. Respondent proceeded with the construction of the Stegers' pool in the same manner as with all other pools he constructed. That is, he reviewed the contract documents, visited the job site to inspect the site during the various stages of construction, and was in charge of scheduling. As is his typical practice, Respondent also had superintendents who oversaw the project and subcontractors who performed most of the actual work on the excavation and construction of the pool. Respondent visited the Stegers' job site at least twice. He went to the pool site before the pool was "shot." During that visit, he did not observe anything that raised concerns regarding the soil conditions that existed at the Steger residence. He inspected the Stegers' job site after the shell was poured and did not observe any problems. He also observed the control joints for the concrete for the pool deck. The spacing of the control joints at the Stegers' job site was the same as his company usually utilizes in constructing pool decks. Robert Fleming is the owner/operator of Fleming Excavating, which is in the business of excavating for swimming pools. He has been in the business of excavating pools for about ten years and has excavated between 5,000 and 6,000 pools. He and persons who work for him performed the excavation of the Stegers' pool. As is typical on a pool excavation job, Mr. Fleming performed what he refers to as "LDS" on the Stegers' pool. That is, layout, dig, steel, and be ready for inspection. He staked out the pool, determining its shape, then excavated the dirt. After the dirt was excavated, he and his workers put in the steel for inspection. In digging the Stegers' pool, Mr. Fleming did not encounter any unusual subsurface soil conditions to give him any indication that there would be problems for the pool in the future. About two weeks after the project was completed, Mr. Steger observed what he perceived to be a half inch rotation of the pool shell in the ground. When the pool was initially filled with water, the water level followed the grout line of the tile around the pool. After a couple of weeks, the water level against the pool tile furthest from the home was at a different level than the tile toward the area of the pool closest to the home. This was reported to Respondent. Mr. Steger then noticed a crack in the pool deck on the backside of the pool. He described the shape of the initial crack to be the same shape as the backside of the pool shell in the decking. Other cracks formed. One is evident where pieces of tile around the pool shell have come off at the place where the crack in the pool deck meets the pool shell. The cracking is all on the deck, not in the pool itself. A representative of Respondent's company went to the Stegers' home in March of 2000 and documented on a warranty form as follows: Southwest deck, [less than] 1/32 separation around the perimeter south of beam. Northwest near expansion tile needs to be regrout. Watch for further expansion northeast. Near expansion tile needs to be regrout. Watch for further expansion. Between December 1999 and March 2000, Mr. Steger made two other requests for warranty work. These conditions were corrected by Respondent and signed off as satisfactorily completed by Mr. Steger. Sometime in the year 2000, Respondent became aware of the cracking problems in the Stegers' deck. He went to the Stegers' home and met with Mr. Steger. He observed that the cracks were in a circular type of pattern following the pool shape. Respondent offered to repair the deck cracks by "v- ing" out the cracks and inserting a urethane 500 product to stop the cracks from coming through. Once that process was completed, Respondent proposed that he would then "respray and re-acrylic the affected area of the deck." Respondent has used this process numerous times to cover cracks in decks, and once it is used, the cracks do not show. Mr. Steger did not agree to Respondent's proposal to repair the cracking of the deck area as illustrated by his testimony at hearing: Mr. Kargar came out and told me that he would, in fact, grind out the concrete in the cracks themselves, fill them in with some sort of epoxy substance in order to mask the cracking. However, that does not address the original problem of the pool shell shifting and the deck moving away from the pool. So, no, I did not accept that as a solution to the problem. Richard Kushner is a civil engineer with a concentration in geotechnical engineering and construction engineering. He works for Universal Engineering Science (Universal). Mr. Steger called Universal which conducted an investigation as to why the pool deck was cracking. A field representative from Universal went to the Stegers' home and performed four manual auger borings into the soil to test the type and condition of the soil under the pool deck, ran density and compaction tests to see how tight the soils were underneath the pool deck, and observed the cracking and the cracking patterns in the concrete. Mr. Kushner did not personally go to the Stegers' as it is customary in the field of geotechnical and construction engineering to review data, do whatever analysis is necessary, and come to a conclusion using an investigative report. Regarding the cause of the pool deck cracking, Mr. Kushner had three concerns: the compaction of the soil underneath the concrete slab was less than 90 percent, whereas the industry standard is 95 percent; evidence of wood rot was found at one of the auger borings, indicating that the original soils were not well stripped and cleared of debris, such as sticks and roots; and insufficient spacing of control joints in the concrete. Mr. Kushner concluded that the contractor and subcontractors who constructed the pool deck were responsible for the cracking in the pool deck. Mr. Kushner acknowledged that two of the three concerns, i.e., the soil compaction and the evidence of organic debris, are circumstances that may cause future problems but were not the cause of the current problems with the deck cracking. Mr. Kushner also acknowledged that the pool cracking is a problem which is cosmetic or aesthetic in nature and that the cracks in the pool deck are not structural problems. Universal's investigation and Mr. Kushner's report relate exclusively to the pool deck, not to the pool shell or the subsoil conditions under the pool shell. Mr. Kushner was not aware when he wrote the report relied upon by Petitioner that there was an issue regarding whether the pool shell was shifting; was not involved in any discussions about the pool shell; and was not aware that the cracks in the pool deck follow the shape of the pool. Mr. Kushner acknowledged that any shifting of the pool shell could be caused by soil conditions underneath the pool shell and could be the cause of deck cracking that followed the shape of the pool. However, the investigation conducted by Universal and his report were exclusively related to the cracking of the pool deck and did not examine anything regarding the pool shell itself. As of July 18, 2003, the Department's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding legal costs, totaled $384.63.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order imposing a $100.00 fine to be deposited in the Construction Industries Recovery Fund for a violation of Section 489.1425, issue a notice of noncompliance pursuant to Section 489.119(6)(e), and require Respondent to pay $384.63 in costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ BARBARA J. STAROS 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 22nd day of August, 2003.
