The Issue The administrative complaint filed on September 17, 1987 alleges that in a residential pool contracting job Respondent Martin ". . . exhibited financial mismanagement, misconduct, or diversion, in violation of 489.129(1)(h), (m) . . . [and] failed to perform in a reasonably timely manner, and/or abandoned said job, in violation of 489.129(1)(m), (k)." The issue is whether Martin committed those violations, and if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Kenneth Martin was licensed in the State of Florida as a registered commercial pool contractor, holding license number RP 0021608. His license is currently in inactive status. Martin was President of Adair Pools, Inc., the corporation under which he conducted his pool construction business. In early July 1986, Adair Pools contracted to build a residential pool for Paul and Cynthia Pajak at 8304 Helena Drive in Orange County, Florida. The pool was to be kidney-shaped, approximately 14 feet by 30 feet, with a waterfall and a detached spa. The contract amount of $11,571.00 expressly excluded the deck, electrical work and screening, although the written contract included a sheet describing the specifications for the excluded work, recommended contractors, and estimated costs. This sheet and the pool contract itself clearly indicated that these items were not the responsibility of the pool company and were not included in the contract price. Work commenced in July, shortly after the contract was signed. Although the contract did not specify a completion date, Martin concedes that the pool should have taken no more than four to eight weeks to complete. The Pajaks had planned a Labor Day party and were told by Adair's employees there would be no problem getting their pool finished for the party. The pool was not finished by Labor Day. After the pool was dug, shot with concrete and tiled, someone determined that the spa was supposed to have been raised. In attempting to raise the spa and to change the water jets, the workers cracked the shell of the spa and had to replace it. Until the problems with the spa, the Pajaks felt that the construction progress was reasonable and smooth. At this point, sometime around Labor Day, the problems began. Adair delayed in paying Shotcrete Pools, the subcontractor for the concrete shell, because Adair felt it was Shotcrete's fault that the spa was cracked. Shotcrete notified the Pajaks that a lien would be placed on the property if they were not paid. The notice to owner is dated November 3, 1986. Eventually Adair paid Shotcrete and its other subcontractors for the Pajak work and no lien was filed. The evidence does not reflect a clear sequence of events, but between Labor Day and February or March 1987, little progress was made to finish the pool. Martin's supervisor left and Martin's brother took over. The Pajaks kept calling Martin and were always assured that the job would be completed. Martin admits that the company at this time was in serious financial trouble because it was not being paid for a large commercial job that it had undertaken. On December 10, 1986, Mrs. Pajak's brother-in-law, an attorney, sent Martin a demand letter, giving a 10-day deadline for completion of the work. Martin and his brother met with the attorney and assured him the job would be finished. In spite of the problems, the Pajaks continued working with Martin and paid the full contract price, less the $100.00 that was to be paid when the pool was filled. On March 5, 1987, Martin informed the Pajaks that they should have the deck poured so that Adair could finish the pool. The Pajaks were not satisfied that the pool was ready for the deck as there were leaks in the waterfall, debris was all over the yard and the spa tile work looked messy. In Martin's opinion those items were his company's responsibility, but were part of the finishing to be done after the deck was poured and the pool was lined with marblelite. On March 21, 1987, the Pajaks contracted with another pool company for $4450.00 to finish their pool. Martin denies that Adair abandoned the job, but admits that it took an inordinate amount of time. The Pajaks did not allow him to finish the cleanup, the interior coating and the pool start up because they contracted with someone else. Martin did not contest that the waterfall leaked or that extensive cleanup needed to be done, but disputed that this work should be done before the deck was poured. He contended that the leaks in the waterfall would have been fixed when the finish was done. Martin estimates that between 1974 and 1986, his company completed over fourteen hundred residential pools and approximately five hundred large commercial pools. Martin has been active on various local pool construction industry boards and has no record of prior disciplinary action against his license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Kenneth Martin be found guilty of misconduct, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, not guilty of the other violations with which he is charged, and that he be required to pay an administrative fine of $500.00. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 2nd day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Bryant, Esquire 220 East Madison Street, Suite 530 Tampa, Florida 33602 Kenneth R. Martin 3225 North Glenn Drive Orlando, Florida 32806 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondent's license as a certified general contractor should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined for multiple violations of Chapter 489 of the Florida Statutes. Specifically, the Respondent is charged with having been found guilty of a crime which relates directly to the practice of contracting in violation of 489.129(1)(b)(1979); willfully or deliberately disregarding and violating the applicable building code in violation of Florida Statute 489.129(1)(d)(1979); aiding and abetting an unlicensed person in his evasion of the Contracting Practice Act in violation of 489.129 (1)(e)(1979); knowingly combining or conspiring with an unlicensed person by allowing Respondent's license to be used by said unlicensed person with the intent to evade the provisions of the Contracting Practice Act in violation of Florida Statute 489.129 (1)(f)(1979); and, violating Florida Statute 489.129(1)(j)(1979) by failing to renew his license every two years and by failing to supervise a construction project. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner called as witnesses the Respondent, Frederick G. Gervia, Leroy S. Duncan, John Knezevich, and Evodio Llevado. Respondent testified on his own behalf and also called as a witness Mr. L. Perry Curtis. Petitioner offered and had admitted without objection eight exhibits. The Respondent offered no exhibits into evidence.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a certified general contractor holding License No. CG C003114. Respondent is also a registered general contractor having been issued License No. RG 0009802. Respondent's license CGC003114 was delinquent as of December 7, 1981, and had not been renewed for the 1981-83 licensing period. On October 11, 1981, Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. entered into a contract with Mr. Leroy Duncan to construct a fiberglass pool at Mr. Duncan's residence located at 1385 N.W. 192nd Terrace, Miami, Florida. On November 10, 1981, Respondent applied for a building permit (see Petitioner's Exhibit 2) for the pool construction at Mr. Duncan's home. The Respondent signed the application in the block designated "Signature of Qualifier or Owner-Builder". The application named Gervia Construction Company, address 2810 S.W. 78th Court as the building contractor. Gervia Construction Company was neither the general contractor nor a subcontractor in connection with the construction of the Duncan pool. At the time that he applied for the building permit, Respondent was qualifying agent for Gervia Construction Company, 2810 S.W. 78th Court, Miami, Florida 33155. The Respondent has made no request to qualify under either of his licenses as the qualifying agent for Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. Neither Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. or its principals were licensed. Prior to and during construction, Mr. Leroy Duncan had no dealings at all with the Respondent or Gervia Construction Company. Mr. Duncan's dealings were primarily with Douglas Lake of Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. Mr. Duncan observed a substantial portion of the construction, but was not present during the form work for the deck. At no time did Mr. Duncan observe the Respondent working on the construction of the pool at his home. The only work performed by Mr. Gervia on the Duncan pool contract was to check the plumbing prior to the county inspection. The pool was actually installed by two principals of Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. and two helpers. These persons were neither supervised nor controlled by the Respondent during construction. During the time period October 11, 1980, through initial construction of the Duncan pool, the Respondent was employed by Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. at a salary of $350 per week. One of his duties was to pull permits. Although the Respondent was also hired to supervise all field construction, at the time the Duncan pool was contracted for and constructed, his supervisory status had been eliminated. The Respondent performed no supervisory duties in connection with the Duncan pool construction. All payments from Mr. Duncan, including two checks totaling $950 and a cash payment of $6,230 were made to Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. No payments were made to the Respondent or Gervia Construction Company. Mr. Gervia did not hire or fire any of the persons who worked on the Duncan pool and kept no records relating to payments received or monies spent on the job at the Duncan residence. Subsequent to the pool being completed, substantial problems and flaws in the Duncan pool developed. The following problems were present in the pool: (See Petitioner's Exhibit 5.) Seven patches on South wall, below water line, are rough, discolored and flaking. The largest two are approximately 12" in diameter and 12" x 4". There is a very small depression in the shallow end seat. The pool flange at the ladder is full of depres- sions, making the edge very rough. Flange cracks at three corners are excessive and need repair. The Southwest corner has a vertical crack down the wall about 1'. See exhibits II, III, IV, and V. The pool wall thickness at corners was 3/8" but north, south and west wall were 7/32" to 1/4" thick. Several dark circles about 2" in diameter are located around perimeter flange and show where holes were drilled and patched poorly. . . Four hydrostatic valves seem high to effectively counteract buoyancy, but approved plan approves 1' above floor at deep end plus one valve in main drain [could not check with pool full]. See notes 9, 10 & 11 - William Meyers plan. 13' x 30' x 72" pool actually measures 12'-11" x 29'-8" x 71 1/8" deep. Vertical floor variations in shallow end are about 1 3/4". Seems depressions occur between ribs. A small bow occurs at Northwest corner near surface of water. Area covers about 18" square. Some concrete voids occur beneath pool lip. Pursuant to an agreement with Mr. Duncan, the Respondent and Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. have repaired those items listed in paragraph 9 in an excellent manner and to the full satisfaction of the owner, Leroy Duncan. On November 17, 1982, the Respondent was convicted in the County Court of Dade County, Florida, of unlawfully aiding and abetting an unlicensed contractor in violation of Section 10-22(h) of the Metropolitan Dade County Code. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was required to pay a $500 fine. The Respondent has been a licensed certified general contractor in the State of Florida since November, 1971, and has had no other charges or actions against his license. There have also been no other complaints filed with the Petitioner regarding the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of those specific violations as set forth in the Conclusions of Law above and that his license as a certified general contractor be suspended for a period of six months and that the Respondent be required to pay an administrative fine of $250.00. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 20th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 45 Southwest 36th Court Miami, Florida 33135 Frederick G. Gervia 2810 Southwest 78th Court Miami, Florida 33155 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
The Issue The issues presented for decision herein are whether or not Respondent failed to properly supervise a pool construction project, willfully violated local laws, is guilty of gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct, fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting and failed to discharge his supervisory duties as a qualifying agent in violation of sections 489.129(1)(d), (m), (j), and sections 489.119 and 489.105 (4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a registered pool contractor in Florida, holding license no. RP0015329 and served as the qualifying agent for Paradise Pools, Inc. (Request for Admission, responses 1- 4). Petitioner is the regulatory agency in Florida charged with the authority to regulate contractors and to determine compliance with applicable state and local building code requirements. On May 31, 1986, Respondent entered into a contract with Alex and Theresa Nitu for the construction of a swimming pool at the Nitu's residence at 9550 Lisa Road in Dade County, Florida. The following day, the Nitus were approached by John Davis, a partner of Paradise Pools, Inc. Davis identified himself as the owner of Paradise Pools and told the Nitus that Respondent was the company salesman. Davis is not a licensed contractor. During construction, Davis supervised the work for the Nitus' pool. Mrs. Nitu was ill and remained at home on the day the workers laid reinforcing steel for the pool shell. Mr. Nitu, an electrical contractor, took off work and was at home during the two days when the gunite work was done for their pool. Respondent was not present on the job site on those days. The day after the concrete deck was poured, the Nitus noticed that it contained several low spots which collected water and that rocks were protruding through the deck's surface. Additionally, a portion of the deck sloped toward the pool rather than away from it. The following day, the Nitus returned home from work to discover that the "whitecoat" for the deck surface was completed and their water hose, weighted down by a rock and a rag, was filling the pool. The pool was filled with water before the Nitus had completed a fence to secure the pool. At Mr. Nitu's request, James Tucker, a Dade County Building Inspector, inspected the pool on August 6, 1986. Tucker issued a notice of violation to Respondent for allowing water to be put in the pool without proper safety barriers in contravention of section 33-12, Dade County Code; for allowing the deck to slope toward the pool in contravention of section 5003.1 of the South Florida Building Code and for using concrete of less than 2500 psi strength in contravention of section 5003.1(a), South Florida Building Code. In an attempt to correct the low spots and improper slope of the patio, Davis poured an additional layer of cement over the pool deck and scored the surface to create the appearance of keystone. Thereafter, the Nitus discovered hollow areas under certain parts of the keystone. Eventually, the keystone began to separate from the original deck exposing large areas of the deck. Ben Sirkus was tendered and accepted as an expert in pool construction. Sirkus inspected the Nitu's pool on September 24, 1987, at Petitioner's request. Sirkus observed low spots in the pool deck which held water and contributed to the growth of algae. He also observed that large areas of the imitation keystone had separated from the original deck; that portions of the deck still drained towards rather than away from, the pool; that coping mortar had been left on the sides of the coping and the pool shell; that areas of the whitecoat were unusually rough and that the pool pump was off level, which in time could cause scoring of the bearings in the pump. Sirkus opined that the deficiencies observed could not have gone unnoticed by a pool contractor of average skill and ability; that deficiencies indicate poor supervision or gross negligence or that Respondent exhibited incompetence in contracting for the Nitu's pool. John Davis, Respondent's partner and the person who was usually on the site during all facets of the construction, credibly testified that when the angles were laid out for the sloping of the decks surrounding the Nitu's pool, Alex Nitu requested that his employees angle the deck toward the pool such that it would mesh with his patio. This required that Respondent's employees reslope the angles in accord with Mr. Nitu's wishes and contrary to the manner in which they originally sloped the deck. Mr. Davis also attempted to correct the problems that had surfaced surrounding the deck in accordance with the concerns expressed by the Nitus. However, the Nitus vehemently refused access to Respondent's employees and the matter therefore, remained unresolved. Respondent Reise was at the construction site on numerous occasions during the major facets of the construction. In addition to being the principal salesman for Paradise Pools, Respondent Reise has extensive experience in the construction of pools and frequently consulted with his partner, John Davis, about the ongoing construction of the Nitu's pool. Respondent Reise also attempted to gain access to the pool to attempt to correct the problems and other concerns expressed by the Nitus, to no avail. In this regard, a meeting was held at the Nitu's residence on January 30, 1987, by Jim Tucker and Robert Denery, employees of the Dade County Building and Zoning Department, a Mr. Wolf, Petitioner's investigator, Respondent and his partner, John Davis. After a lengthy discussion, it was agreed that all problems were to be resolved which included (1), repair and patch the keystone on the east end of the pool and (2), rework the slope on the northside of the pool to pitch away from the pool and (3), submit test results from an engineering test lab as to the structural strength of the patio slab and final approval by the electrical and plumbing departments of Dade County. Respondent agreed to correct the above-referenced items and agreed to do so as quickly as feasible. The Nitus refused to allow Respondent's employees back on the site to correct the problems. (Respondent's Exhibit 1). John Davis and Respondent's other employees denied that they started filling the Nitu's pool prior to the time that the Nitus had completed a fence to secure it. Their denial in this regard is incredible and is not worthy of belief. The Nitus, in this regard, credibly testified that they were at all times concerned about the safety of the pool and would never have started filling it prior to the time that it was secured. Respondent's employees, on the other hand, were in fact interested in completing the job and it is therefore believed that they started the water running into the pool and weighted the hose down with a rock and a rag as the Nitus found it when they returned home from work on the day that the "whitecoat" was completed. In all other respects, based on the Nitus' failure to permit Respondent's employees to return to the site to complete the deficiencies and other concerns noted, the undersigned finds that Respondent should have been afforded an opportunity to correct such deficiencies and cannot be held liable 1/ for the allegations that he improperly sloped the pool deck, used improper concrete or was otherwise negligent, incompetent, engaged in misconduct and other allegations of improper supervision, as alleged. I shall so recommend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be assessed an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00. Respondent be issued a written reprimand for allowing his employees to fill an unsecured pool in violation of the local building code. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1988.
Findings Of Fact On August 1, 1980, Copper Door II, Inc., entered into a contract with Lang Aquatech Pools to construct a swimming pool for $22,338. Lang began construction, but Copper Door did not maintain the payment schedule called for in the contract, whereupon Lang terminated work on the pool. The parties later reached an agreement that upon payment of $5,000 by Copper Door to Lang work would recommence. After payment by Copper Door of the $5,000, little if any work was performed by Lang toward completion of the pool. Copper Door took over construction and subcontracted the remainder of the work on the pool. The pool was opened to the public by Copper Door and cited by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for failure to have an operating permit in violation of Rule 10D-5.65, Florida Administrative Code. Copper Door has been unable to obtain an operating permit because of its inability to complete an application for an operating permit. The Department's application form for an operating permit (Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 1) requires execution of a certificate by the pool's engineer and contractor. Because of the aforementioned financial dispute, neither Lang nor its engineer would sign the form. The form requires that both the pool contractor and engineer be registered or certified with the state. The pool was designed by an engineer registered in the State of Florida. Further, the design of the pool was approved by the Department prior to commencement of construction. Work completed by Copper Door after abandonment of construction by Lang included the application of concrete to the inside of the pool, pouring of the decking, installation of a water circulating pump, and a portion of the electrical work. All other work was done by Lang. The pool performs properly and in accordance with other public pools granted operating permits by the Department. The pool was subject to inspection by local building officials. These officials were responsible for ensuring that construction was in accord with plans approved by the Department and local building codes. The Department does not inspect pools during construction. The Department looks instead to the certificate of the contractor and engineer to ensure that a pool meets applicable requirements. The Department's application form has not been adopted by rule or as a rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services accept the application of Copper Door II, Inc., upon execution of the contractor's certificate by Copper Door as owner. Copper Door must keep the pool closed until its application is approved. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 18th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: William W. Chastain, Esquire 412 Madison Street, Suite 1207 Post Office Box 222 Tampa, Florida 33601 Donald R. Odom, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2255 East Bay Drive Post Office Box 5046 Clearwater, Florida 33518 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Wesley Ash, currently holds license number CP C015871 issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board to authorize Ash to engage in the pool contracting business. Dodd Complaint (Count I). Respondent, Wesley Ash, doing business as Wada Pools, Inc., contracted with Jerry Dodd on or about June 17, 1981, to build a pneumatic concrete pool with skimmer and recirculation system. The contract did not include installation of the concrete deck around the pool. Dodd decided to contract with another independent contractor to install the deck at a lower price than Ash wanted for the job. Ash completed his work by approximately August 1981. He installed the concrete pool shell, finished the inside surface and installed tile along the water line. He then attached the skimmer assembly, plumbing it so that it was level and attaching it to the concrete pool shell by means of the skimmer's PVC plumbing piping. After Ash finished his work, Dodd's other contractor came behind Ash. He used some of the dirt Ash had excavated from the pool site to raise the ground surrounding the pool by approximately six inches above grade. He then poured the concrete deck but failed to encase the skimmer assembly with the deck concrete in the process of pouring the concrete deck. It was not Ash's practice to make any special arrangements to stabilize the skimmer assembly when he installed both pool and concrete deck. He relies on the skimmer assembly plumbing to stabilize the skimmer assembly until the concrete deck is poured. In pouring the concrete deck, Ash encases the skimmer assembly with the deck concrete to stabilize the skimmer assembly and prevent leakage. In the case of the Poland pool (paragraphs 17 and 22, below), Ash used this method to install both the pool and the concrete deck, and Poland has had no complaint of leakage at the skimmer (nor was there any evidence of leakage at the skimmer). In the case of the Priests' pool (paragraphs 11 through 13, below), Ash followed the same procedures as he did with the Dodd pool, and another contractor poured the concrete deck. As with the Poland pool, there have been no complaints (nor was there any evidence) of leakage at the skimmer. Within approximately one and one-half years after installation of the Dodd pool, Dodd began to notice what he thinks is a leak in his pool. The water level in the Dodd pool drops approximately one-quarter inch per day. But the Department's own expert witness conceded that water loss of between one-eight and one-quarter inch can be explained by evaporation. It was not proved that the Dodd pool is leaking at all. If there is a leak causing a small increment of water loss above loss through normal evaporation, the leak would have to be very small and would be very difficult to detect. Ash and others have tried but have been unable to find a leak at the skimmer of Dodd pool. In approximately summer 1985, Dodd himself dug a hole under the concrete deck to expose the bottom of the skimmer assembly. The excavation revealed an unusual amount of moisture that might be the result of a leak at the skimmer. It also revealed that the contractor who poured the Dodd concrete deck did not encase the skimmer assembly as Ash had thought he would. The Department's expert - a professional engineer with a B.S. degree in civil engineering, an M.S. degree in structural engineering and a Ph.D. degree in environmental engineering - gave his opinion that a residential pool skimmer assembly should be either (1) encased with the concrete of the pool shell or (2) encased with deck concrete which is structurally tied to the concrete pool shell. He opined that the latter method would require either a very rough surface on the pool shell concrete or steel extending from the pool shell in order for the structural tie to be accomplished. But he also conceded that it is possible for deck concrete encasing a skimmer assembly to be sufficient to stabilize the skimmer assembly even without taking any extra measures to accomplish a structural tie. There was no evidence that any building code would require a pool contractor to take these measures to accomplish a structural tie between the pool shell and skimmer assembly. Nor was there any evidence that a reasonably prudent pool contractor (as opposed to a professional engineer) would be expected to take these measures. Based on this evidence, together with all the other evidence taken as a whole, the Department did not prove that Ash was either incompetent or grossly negligent in not taking any extra measurers to accomplish a structural tie between the concrete pool shell and the skimmer assembly. Based on the evidence in this case, the contractor Dodd hired to pour the concrete deck was either incompetent or grossly negligent (assuming he was even a licensed pool contractor a fact not shown by the evidence.) He did not encase the skimmer assembly with the deck concrete, allowing it to "float" unprotected in the fill under the concrete deck. Settling of the fill could have caused the deck to settle and crack, moving the skimmer assembly and causing a small leak. Ash may have been able to prevent this by warning the contractor to be sure to encase the skimmer assembly with deck concrete when he poured the concrete deck. But there was no evidence that Ash had a duty to advise the other independent contractor Dodd hired or was responsible for the other contractor's incompetence or gross negligence. Ash's failure to advise the other contractor was not incompetence or gross negligence on Ash's part. Dodd has no other complaints about the pool Ash built for him. Priests' Complaint (Count II). On or about October 11, 1984, Ash contracted with Joseph and Rita Priest to build them a pneumatic concrete pool. The Contract included a warranty that the labor, materials and workmanship would be free of defects for one year and that the shell would be structural sound and capable of holding the water for ten years. Like Dodd, the Priests contracted with another independent contractor to install the concrete deck around the pool. Ash was responsible only for placement of decorative "river rock" on top of the deck. Ash finished his work in February 1985. Like Dodd, the Priests complained of water loss from the pool although the Priests noticed the water loss sooner than Dodd (approximately March, 1985). The water level was dropping approximately one-quarter inch per day more than it was dropping in a bucket used as a control. In response to the complaint, Ash sent his employees to the Priests' pool on several occasions. They found no leak at the skimmer. To determine whether the pool's "caretaker system" 1/ was leaking, Ash's employees plugged all but one pair of the caretaker heads. After waiting a period of days, they would try to see whether the rate of water loss changed. They tested all four pairs of caretaker heads on the bottom of the pool and the pair in the spa attached to the pool. No leaks could be found. They did not replace the last two (in the spa), and Mr. Priest had to replace them. As with the Dodd pool, the Department did not prove that the Priests' pool is leaking at all. The Priests continue to complain of water loss of approximately one-quarter inch per day, within the range of water loss from normal evaporation. As with the Dodd pool, a leak responsible for a small increment of water loss above water loss from normal evaporation would be very small and difficult to find, especially if the leak were in the caretaker heads or pipes under the pool leading to the heads. Now the Priests suspect a water leak at the filter. But the Department's expert witness could not find a leak there large enough to account for much water loss. The minor leak at the filter is a normal maintenance item for a pool as old as the Priests' pool. There was no evidence how long it has existed, and there was no evidence that the Priests ever told Ash there was a leak at the filter. The Priests now also complain that one of the caretaker heads does not re-seat properly. But this has nothing to do with the leakage complaint to which Ash is charged with not reasonably responding. Taken as a whole, the evidence did not prove that Ash committed misconduct or deceit by failing to make reasonable response to warranty service requests within a reasonable time, as charged. Nor does the evidence prove misleading or untrue representations, gross negligence, incompetence or fraud in connection with the Priests' pool, as charged. Poland Complaint (Count III). On or about December 9, 1981, Ash entered into a contract with James Poland to build Poland a pneumatic concrete pool and concrete deck. Poland contracted with another independent contractor to build a screen enclosure around the pool. Before construction began, one of Ash's employees asked Poland to sign an addendum to the contract for an additional $235 to pay for foundation footers required to comply with Lee County building code provisions for the screen enclosures. Before Ash signed the initial Poland contract on December 9, 1981, he was unaware of the Lee County Aluminum Code, adopted March 18, 1981. The code requires eight inch foundation footers for "aluminum additions." Another part of the code addresses "screen enclosures with screen roofs known to the industry as birdcage swimming pool enclosures." The language of the code is not explicit that screen swimming pool enclosures are required to meet the foundation requirements for "aluminum additions," and at first Lee County did not interpret the code that way. With a change of personnel in code enforcement, Lee County began to interpret the code that way, and screen swimming pool enclosures Ash had under construction began to fail building inspection for inadequate foundation footers. Ash inquired why and was told about the aluminum code and how it was being interpreted. Ash argued that the interpretation was erroneous but, failing to dissuade enforcement personnel, began to comply. As part of his compliance efforts, Ash had his employees try to secure the contract addendum from Poland. Poland refused to sign the contract addendum, insisting on an opportunity to verify that the additional foundation footers were indeed new building code requirements. There still is a dispute between the parties whether Poland ever agreed to pay the additional $235 after he verified that the footers were being required. (He never signed the contract addendum.) But, in any event, the evidence did not prove that Ash was incompetent, grossly negligent, deceitful or guilty of fraud or misconduct in connection with the additional $235 charge. 2/ There was some evidence that Ash did not in fact comply with the Lee County Aluminum Code, as he was told it was being interpreted, in his construction of the Poland pool deck. In two places the foundation footers were 6 and 7 inches - deeper than the four-inch normal thickness of a concrete pool deck but short of the eight-inch requirement. But Ash was not charged with failure to comply with the foundation footer requirement. He had no legally sufficient notice that he should be prepared to defend against that charge and was not prepared to defend against that charge. Therefore, no finding is made whether Ash complied with the Lee County Aluminum Code. Ash performed the Poland contract between approximately January 27 and February 26, 1982. In September, 1985, Poland began to notice that some of the tile Ash installed at the waterline around the perimeter of the pool was coming loose. As explained by the Department's expert witness, the concrete deck settled in places, cracking slightly and rotating over the fulcrum created by the wall of the concrete shell of the pool. The rotating action pulled up on the tile attached to the inside of the pool wall in places, loosening the tile. In all, less than 10 percent of the 77 foot perimeter of the Poland pool experienced problems with loose tile. The loose tile easily can be removed and replaced. The minor deck cracking and loose tile problems at the Poland pool are within the normal range for a competently constructed pool under normal conditions of ground settlement. The evidence did not prove that Ash improperly installed the pool deck or that he was incompetent or grossly negligent in the construction of the Poland pool and deck. Besides the loose tile and minor cracks in the concrete deck, the Poland pool had no apparent defects. There also was evidence that the Poland pool was finished with a coating of marcite on the inside surface of the pool shell which was mottled gray in color instead of white. Poland complained persistently about the marcite3 and insisted that Ash make it white. But the discolored marcite was a factory defect of which Ash had been unable to know before he used it. There is no way to make mottled gray marcite white. Ash tried to explain this to Poland but the customer would not be satisfied. Taken as a whole, the marcite evidence did not prove that Ash was incompetent, grossly negligent, deceitful or guilty of fraud or misconduct. Nor does the evidence prove any of those violations for failure to cure the marcite problem under warranty. First, as already stated, there was no cure. Second, Ash and Poland also had a running dispute whether Poland had paid the full contract price, including the additional $235 for foundation footers, so as to entitle him to any warranty repairs. In light of this genuine dispute, failure to do warranty work, if otherwise a reasonable request, still could not be found to be misconduct, fraud or deceit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint that has been filed against Respondent, Wesley Ash, in these cases. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of December 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 9th day of December, 1986.
The Issue The legal issues raised and the status of the parties in this cause are seemingly complex due to the manner in which the case was presented on the initial pleadings to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At bearing, it was determined that Fairways was seeking approval of a permit for use of its swimming pool. This application had been denied by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on the grounds that the pool failed to meet the requirements of Rule 100-5.50, Florida Administrative Code. In order to place the parties in their proper positions, the Respondent, Fairways, was determined to be the movant party and its cross-petition considered to be the petition. The ultimate issue presented is whether the subject pool meets the requirements of Rule 100-5.50 and its use should be approved. PRELIMINARY RULINGS Fairways collaterally attacks the manner of application of the rule by the Department to its pool, asserting that the manner of application of the rule constitutes an unpromulgated rule. Fairways also alleges in its proposed findings that Rule 100-5.50 is an invalid exercise of validly delegated legislative authority, and that the Department is estopped to assert the pool fails to comply with Rule 100-5.50 because of a failure to communicate properly the conditional approval of construction of the pool. The allegations that the Department's application of Rule 100-5.50 constitutes an unpromulgated rule and that Rule 100-5.50 is invalid are raised for the first time in Fairways' proposed findings. The original petition (cross-petition) makes no allegation that Rule 100-5.50 is invalid, and makes no allegation that the manner of measurement is an invalidly promulgated rule. These allegations would not be properly raised within the context of a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, proceeding. Although invalidity of the rules on constitutional grounds is preserved in the record for appellate review, the nature of the allegations in this instance are not grounded in a constitutional challenge. Having failed to raise these issues in their pleadings under the appropriate provision of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, these attacks will not be considered in determining the issue presented in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a six-building complex containing 13 condominium units, each building being situated on a separate lot circumscribed by property lines outlining the property within the exclusive possession and control of the occupants of the condominiums. The pool in question is located upon jointly held property and is not intended to be and has not been open for use by the public or persons other than the occupants of the condominiums and their guests. On April 2, 1979, Fairways submitted a site plan (Joint Exhibit number 4) to Petitioner at the Manatee County Health Department. The site plan showed the proposed location of the pool in relation to the condominium buildings. Approval of these plans by the Department was necessary in order for a construction permit to be issued for the pool. By a letter dated May 30, 1979 (Joint Exhibit number 2), Mr. O. P. Randle, Jr., Engineer for the Department, granted approval for the pool plans with the condition that "Wet facilities shall be provided within two hundred (200) feet of the pool." Between April 4 and May 30, 1979, Ms. Rosemary Wiley, Engineering Technician with the Department, orally informed Fairways' "project engineer" that several units were more than 200 feet from the proposed pool and that wet facilities would be required. During this period, Wiley also informed Fairways' pool contractor of the same condition and requirements. A construction permit for the pool was secured by Fairways' pool contractor on June 4, 1979. Construction of the pool began during the first week of June, 1979, and was substantially finished by July 5, 1979. Shortly after June 17, 1979, Fairways contacted the Department's local pollution control director, who visited Fairways and measured the distance between the water's edge of the pool and the farthest building. The method of measurement employed by the Health Department was to measure the shortest distance between the edge of the pool and the structure of the building. The method of measurement used by the Department has been in use 16 years and evolved because measurement from the pool to the actual sanitary facility located within a building is impractical. The only building which was not within 200 feet of the water's edge of the pool was Building 6, containing two dwelling units, which was 241 feet from the edge of the pool. Part of Building 5 is more than 200 feet from the edge of the pool; however, its closest edge is within 200 feet of the pool, meeting the requirement for wet facilities. The only toilets and lavatories constructed at this site are those contained in the individual condominium units. These facilities are not open to use by the public or other condominium owners. By letter dated June 23, 1979, the local pollution director, at the request of the Health Officer, requested from the Chief of Public Health Engineering Services an interpretation of the method of measuring the 200 feet provided in Rule 100-5.50. The request of the Health Officer was precipitated by a request for section interpretation by Fairways' agent. The request dealt specifically with what was required to be within the 200-foot radius of the pool. The interpretation of the Chief of Public Health Engineering Services was contained in his letter dated July 5, 1979, addressed to the District VI pollution control director. This interpretation advised that the building's edge must touch or fall within a 200-foot radius of the pool. This letter also advised that the Department had no power to consider or grant variances or exceptions to the rules. The information contained in this interpretation was communicated to Fairways' agent. Other proposed findings of fact presented by the Petitioner and Respondent are specifically rejected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department deny the application of the applicant for a permit of use. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Amelia Park, Esquire Department of HRS W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo Avenue, 4th Floor Tampa, Florida 33614 Janice Sorter, Esquire Department of HRS W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo Avenue, 4th Floor Tampa, Florida 33614 David Paul Montgomery, Esquire 2103 Manatee Avenue, West Bradenton, Florida 33505
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified pool contractor, holding license number CP CO27486. Respondent obtained his certificate in October, 1983. His only prior discipline consists of a letter of guidance in late 1989 or early 1990. At all material times, Respondent was qualifying agent for Gold Medallion Pcol, Inc. On March 27, 1986, Respondent and Mr. and Mrs. Don Burson entered into a contract for the construction cf a swimming pool at the Bursons' residence. The Bursons had purchased the residence while it was still under construction in May or June, 1985. The lot was low and had required fill. Clearly visible behind the lot is a large marshy wetland. The contract called for the Bursons to pay $16,315 for the construction of a 20' by 40' concrete lap pool with depths of 3' at either end and 6' in the center. Paragraph 4 of the contract provides: The Owner is responsible for increased costs incurred by the Contractor due to underground conditions which may be encountered during construction, such as but not limited to, muck, inadequate soil-bearing capacity, and excessive ground water. The Contractor, upon encountering such conditions, shall notify the Owner of their existence and give him an approximate cost estimate to rectify the problem. The Owner shall have five (5) days from the receipt of the approximate cost estimate to instruct the Contractor not to proceed with the pool. . . . If the Contractor determines that additional testing is required prior to furnishing approximate costs estimates to determine the exact nature or extent of the underground condition encountered, the Owner shall be responsible for the cost of all testing and/or engineering required by the Contractor. Paragraph 8.D states that the Owner warrants that there [is] no . . . mock . . . in that portion of the owner's property which the contractor will construct the pool [and] decking . . .. The owner is responsible for the removal, repair or replacement of any underground conditions . . . encountered during construction unless he elects to terminate the contract and pay damages to the contractor as set forth in the clause on underground conditions. Paragraph 11.A provides: Contractor warrants to the original owner for the lifetime of the original purchaser, the swimming pool structure, the shell, will not leak due to cracking. . . . This Limited Structural Warranty does not cover damage to the pool shell caused by fluctuations of the water table, construction in the vicinity of the pool site, or natural phenomenon. . . . The contractor's responsibility under this Limited Structural Warranty shall be to repair the shell so that it holds water without cost to the original owner. . . . The method of repair shall be at the discretion of the contractor. THE CONTRACTOR MAKES NO OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES INCLUDING THE WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE IN REGARDS TO THE POOL STRUCTURE, THE SHELL. Paragraph 11.B.2, which further describes the limited warranty, states: It is anticipated the concrete deck and deck coatings may crack due to settling of deck or weather. Cracks one-quarter inch or less with no substantial deviation in elevation are not covered. . . . The plot plan, which is part of the contract, shows the pool located on the east side of the house. The pool is oriented in a north-south direction. The southern end of the pool runs toward the back of the lot, which is on a steep slope. The southern end of the pool adjoins the widest section of decking, which Respondent constructed at the time of the construction of the pool. The plot plan also shows that excavated dirt was to be placed just south of the decking on the south end of the pool. Shortly after pulling a building permit from the Seminole County Building Department on March 27, 1986, Respondent began construction of the pool. The actual construction was performed by Mid-Florida Pool Company, which is a major pool construction company in Central Florida. Construction was completed on April 23, 1986, and the Bursons paid the amount required under the contract. Prior to commencement of construction of the pool, this area of the Bursons' lot had been filled with about 2 1/2 to 3 feet of dirt. In order to construct the pool, Respondent or his subcontractors added another 2 1/2 to 3 feet of fill, at least to the southern end of site of the pool and decking. It is at this point that the land begins to slope most steeply toward the marsh in the back. Neither Respondent nor any of his subcontractors conducted any soil tests prior to commencing construction or compressed or compacted the soil beneath the pool prior to installing the shell. This omission constitutes a departure from sound contracting practices under the facts cf this case. Respondent constructed several pilasters under the southern end of the deck, but these structural supports were designed to support the deck, not the pool. In general, the depth of the excavation had to exceed the depth of the pool by one foot in order to accommodate the shell. Thus, the extreme southern end of the shell required a hole only about four feet deep. An excavation of this depth did not exceed the combined depth of the old and new fill. There is no indication that Respondent or his subcontractors encountered muck during the excavation or construction of the pool. Likewise, there is no indication that Respondent or any of subcontractors was aware that mucky, unstable soils underlaid the location of the pool, especially the southern end. The pool was completed to the initial satisfaction of the Bursons. However, within 90 days of completion, the southern half of the shell developed five or six major cracks as a result of the settlement of the southern end of the pool. This portion of the pool settled because the underlying muck had been compressed by the weight of the shell and water. Gradually, the water loss from the settlement cracks, which were mostly below the waterline, became significant. At Respondent's suggestion, the Bursons agreed to wait through the winter before commencing repairs in order to allow the cracking to stabilize. In the spring of 1987, the Bursons drained the pool at Respondent's direction. Respondent then scored the cracks with a screwdriver and applied a filling compound in order to seal any leaks. As directed by Respondent, the Bursons then refilled the pool, but before more than two feet of water had been added, the filling compound fell out of the cracks. When the Bursons informed Respondent of the failure of the repair, he responded that he had performed under the contract and had no further obligation. The Bursons exercised their right to arbitrate, as provided in the contract. The arbitrators conducted a limited investigation. Expressly noting that they were not soil engineers and thus could not determine why the soil under the pool failed to support the shell, the arbitrators determined that the contractor was not responsible for any damage to the pool, "which was built to industry standards." The Bursons next contacted various pool contractors about repair options. Most of the contractors suggested a V-cut about 2 1/2 inches deep followed by the injection of hydraulic cement. When the Bursbns informed Respondent that this type of repair appeared necessary, he refused to undertake such work. By this time, one of the contractors documented that five of the cracks, which ranged from 1/16" to 1/4" wide, were pulling water out of the pool at a rate of 1-3" daily. This contractor charged the Bursons $125 for his services. After contacting the Seminole County Building Department, the Bursons learned that the pool had never passed a final inspection. When they had an inspector visit the site on September 13, 1991, he failed the job due to, among ether things, "massive deck cracks." At the insistence of Seminole County officials, the Bursons obtained expert opinions as to the cause of the cracks in preparation for the local hearing on the Bursons' charges against Respondent. In July, 1990, the American Testing Laboratories, Inc. conducted tests and opined that the south end of the pool had settled due to muck at a level of five feet below the bottom of the shell. Additional testing found muck at depths of 3-7 feet at two points just east of the south end of the pool. These tests cost the Bursons $498. When the Seminole County officials insisted upon further testing, the Bursons hired Jammal & Associates, Inc., which performed soil borings on August 23, 1990. The boring sites were just east of a point about midway along the southern half of the pool and a point just south of the southern end of the pool. The latter boring site revealed muck after penetrating about six feet of fill. At the request of Respondent, a Jammal employee returned to the site on November 13, 1990, to determine the potential cause of the cracking of the pool shell and deck. Jammal concluded that the cracking is the result of consolidation of the highly compressible peat layer found in the [southern] boring. Based upon the [cracking] observed, we suspect the southern 1/3 or so of the pool and deck area are underlain by the buried peat layer. The remainder of the pool and deck are most likely underlain by sandy soils. Because of the nature of the buried organic soils, the pool and deck will probably continue to settle at a diminishing rate for several years. Addition of new loads such as placement of additional fill around the pool and deck area, or a significant drop in the groundwater table could cause additional and accelerated settlement of the pool and deck. Jammal offered three repair options. The first was to patch the cracks. Jammal assumed that, although continued cracking could be expected, it would occur at a lesser rate because most of the settlement of the buried muck had already taken place. The second option was to remove the pool and then remove the underlying muck. The third option was to install inside the shell a fiberglass liner. The last option had been first suggested by Respondent. If not rigidly attached to the shell, the liner probably would not reflect further cracking of the shell. The Bursons paid Jammal the sum of $300 for its services. Ultimately, the Bursons decided to install a fiberglass liner and entered into a contract on November 19, 1990, with Fibre Tech for the work. The total cost of the project was $5415. This cost excludes the cost of replacing a pool vacuum for which Respondent does not appear responsible. The liner was later installed, and the Bursons paid the contract price. In the meantime, at a meeting on October 16, 1990, the Seminole County Swimming Pool Contractor's Board revoked Respondent's County certificate of competency until he repaired the pool or made restitution to the owners. This action was based upon a violation of Seminole County Code Section 40.151 and 40.34(2) and (9). Section 40.151 provides that "[a]11 completed pools shall be absolutely watertight." Section 40.34(a) allows the Board to revoke a certificate of competency if the contractor: (2) Continue[s] performance of building work in a negligent, incompetent or unworkmanlike manner. (9) Violate[s] any provision of this Chapter. The determination of the Seminole County Swimming Pool Board became final when Respondent failed to take a timely appeal of the order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order imposing an administrative fine of $2500 and suspending Respondent's license until he makes restitution to the Bursons in the amount of $6338. ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 October, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McCray, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Craig M. Dickinson, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Merwin C. Carter, pro se 611 Ensenada Avenue Orlando, FL 32825
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, respondent Henry C. Hollenbeck was licensed as a swimming pool contractor. In February of 1980, respondent, doing business as Acme Pools, entered into a contract with Loren Bjornson to construct a swimming pool at Bjornson's residence for a total purchase price of $8,300. Construction of this pool was completed on or about June 30, 1980. Respondent did not obtain a building permit for the Bjornson pool until January 5, 1981. Prior to the construction of a swimming pool in Ft. Walton Beach, a building permit is required. No inspections were performed by the City during construction of the Bjornson pool. Many items, such as the plumbing, walls, drain system, etc., cannot be adequately inspected after construction is completed and the pool is filled with water. Almost immediately upon construction of the Bjornson pool, a crack in the wall at the center of the pool appeared. This was repaired by respondent. Then, in July of 1980, the pool started losing one inch of water per day. In August, 1980, the pool started losing two inches of water per day. Mr. Bjornson repeatedly contacted respondent about this problem, but respondent did not respond to the calls because he felt that Mr. Bjornson had not paid his bills. Apparently, the financial dispute concerned work on a neighbor's driveway for which Mr. Bjornson was never billed. On three different occasions, Mr. Bjornson had not paid his bills. Apparently, the financial dispute concerned work on a neighbor's driveway for which Mr. Bjornson was never billed. On three different occasions, Mr. Bjornson retained another pool company to make repairs on his pool to prevent it from leaking. The three repair bills amounted to slightly over $200 and none of the repair jobs could be guaranteed. In order to make a guarantee, the service and sales manager of Aqua Pools estimated that repairs amounting to $11,365 would be necessary. It was his opinion that the repair work would involve a major rebuilding of the pool, including the removal of the pool deck and tiles and the reinforcement of walls. At the time of the hearing, the Bjornson pool was not presently leaking. By contract dated August 10,1979, respondent agreed to install a swimming pool for Mr. and Mrs. Walter Parker. Construction was competed in October of 1979 and leaking problems began almost immediately. Respondent came back on at least four occasions to do the repair work. The corners were patched and other repair work necessitating the complete draining of the pool was performed. Each time, the Parkers were charged for labor and parts. At the time of the hearing, the Parker pool still leaked approximately one inch per day. It was estimated that it would cost about $1,000 to repair the Parker pool adequately so that a one-year warranty against leaking could be given. Respondent testified that he did not respond to Mr. Bjornson's calls for repair work because Mr. Bjornson still owed him money. He believed the Parkers also owed him money. He felt that he could repair both pools adequately for a nominal sum of money.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner find respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(d) and 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and suspend his pool contractor's license for a period of one (1) year. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December 1981 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 December 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Henry C. Hollenbeck Rt. 1, Box 196 F-G, Circle Drive Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Mr. Samuel Shorestein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the Department of Professional Regulation. The Respondent is Phillip Whitaker, Jr., holder of certified pool contractor license number CP-C008325 at all times pertinent to these proceedings. He is the qualifying agent for the business known as Sunshine State Pools pursuant to requirements of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. He is responsible for actions of that business relating to construction of the swimming pool which is the subject of this proceeding. His address of record is Miami, Florida. The customer, Ken Gibson, signed a contract with Sunshine State Pools on September 15, 1986. The contract called for construction of a residential swimming pool at 15840 S.W. 155th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The total contract price was $12,700. Testimony adduced at hearing establishes that Sunshine State Pools completed the layout of the customer's swimming pool and the excavation of soil from the proposed pool site by October 1, 1986. These tasks were accomplished under the Respondent's supervision. Metropolitan Dade County issued a building permit for construction of the swimming pool in response to a permit application bearing the signature of Phillip E. Whitaker. The permit and application are both dated October 10, 1986. At hearing, the Respondent acknowledged that initiation of construction prior to pulling the permit and termed this action an "oversight." Based on the candor, demeanor and experience of the Respondent, his explanation of the failure to timely obtain the construction permit is not credited. Initiation of construction for a swimming pool prior to obtaining permits constitutes a violation of part 301.1(n), of the South Florida Building Code and, by stipulation of the parties at hearing, the building code of Metropolitan Dade County. The Respondent was responsible for supervision of the actual pool shell construction. After completion and removal of the wood forms used in the process, steel rods or "rebar pins" required as support during the construction process were not removed. These rods extended some distance above the ground and posed a substantial hazard to Respondent's children while playing. Finally, the steel rods were removed by the customer a week after he requested the Respondent to remove them. Respondent admitted some of these reinforcements could have been left by his subordinates. Respondent admits responsibility for the "back fill" process completed on October 25, 1986. This was originally a responsibility of the customer under the contract as the party responsible for deck construction. The "back fill" process consists of compacting loose soil between the outside of the pool walls and surrounding earth by use of special tamping or pounding equipment. Under terms of the contract, the customer was responsible for construction of a sizeable two part deck surrounding at least sixty percent of the pool's circumference. There now exists a substantial height difference between the coping surrounding the perimeter of the pool and the deck or patio surface. The coping is elevated above the top of the patio approximately two to four inches. As adduced from testimony of Ben Sirkus (stipulated by both parties as an expert in swimming pools and swimming pool construction), coping along the top of the pool walls consists of flagstone rock in conformity with the contract terms. Some of the rocks are cracked. The rocky edge of the coping extends over the pool wall and has a dangerously sharp edge. The sharp edge of the coping overhang could have been avoided by cutting the flagstone coping smooth prior to installation, the acceptable practice among pool contractors. The bottom step to one set of the pool steps has a hazardous 19 inch riser as opposed to the 12 inch distance required by the building code. No hand rail is present. Hollow space under some of the coping stones are the result of either improper installation, dirty cement or sinking of the deck as a result of improper "back filling" upon completion of the pool shell. On one occasion, Respondent admitted responsibility for deficiencies in the pool coping to an employee named Rick Miro. The Respondent further stated to this employee that he intended to do nothing about the problem. Respondent was present during some, but not all, of the coping installation. The "skimmer," the apparatus by which debris is cleared from the pool water, is inoperable as a result of faulty construction of the pool. The failure of the Respondent, who admits to successful completion of approximately 2500 pools with only three complaints, to properly supervise job site activities was the major cause of the pool deficiencies identified at hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two years upon such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board and assessed an administrative penalty in the amount of $1500. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 19th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5053 The following constitutes my specific ruling on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Included in finding 2. Included in finding 3. Included in finding 4. Included in findings 5, 6 and 7. Included in findings 5 and 6. Included in finding 8. Included in finding 10 with exception of hearsay statement. Included in finding 11.1 Included in finding 12. Included in finding 11. Included in finding 11. Included in finding 11. Included in finding 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Included in finding 11. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mark D. Press, Esquire 2250 Southwest Third Avenue 5th Floor Miami, Florida 33129 William O'Neil General Counsel 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent, George W. Boukater, was a certified general contractor, license number CG C012598, and a registered pool contractor, license number RP 0032042. Respondent was the qualifier for Swimming Pools by M.J. Donohue, Inc. (Donohue), under license number RP 0032042, from February 1979 until June 30, 1985. On July 29, 1984 Donohue contracted to construct a swimming pool at the residence of Ms. Loretta Hunley in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for the sum of $6,400.00. Respondent, on behalf of Donohue, applied for and received the building and plumbing permits for the pool. Apart from securing the permits, Respondent had no contact with the job and never inspected its progress. By August 30, 1984, Donohue had substantially completed the pool. All that remained to be done was to marcite the pool, hook up the pool light and plumbing, and install the pumps. However, before these items could be completed it was necessary that the area surrounding the pool be backfilled, the patio poured, and the electric installed. Under the July 29, 1984 contract Ms. Hunley did not contract with Donohue for any patio, electric or fence work. She expressly retained responsibility for that work in an effort to save money on the pool construction. The area surrounding the pool was not backfilled and the patio slab approved by the Broward County Building and Zoning Department (County) until September 14, 1984. As of September 5, 1985, the fence work was still in violation of the County code. The electric work received the County's final approval on January 8, 1986. In October 1984 demands were exchanged between Ms. Hunley and Donohue. Ms. Hunley demanded that the pool be completed. Donohue demanded adequate electrical service so the pool could be pumped and cleaned for marciting, and dates when someone would be available at the premises. In November 1984 Donohue got its pumps in operation, however Ms. Hunley disconnected them in the evenings. Consequently, the pool could not be drained and cleaned to marcite it. In November 1984 Ms. Hunley ejected Donohue from the job site. Subsequently, Ms. Hunley and Donohue formally settled their dispute.
