The Issue The ultimate issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent was found guilty of a crime and whether Respondent was confined in a county jail in violation of Sections 475.25(1)(f) and (n), Florida Statutes. 1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and has been at all times material to this proceeding a licensed real estate broker in the state, holding license numbers 0473019 and 0258304. The licenses were issued was as a broker %Realty One & Associates, Inc., 131 East Enid Drive, Key Biscayne, Florida 33149, and as a broker %Realty One of Miami, Inc., 1215 N.E. 128th Street, North Miami, Florida 33161. Respondent earned a Bachelor of Architecture degree from Ohio State University in 1955. Respondent was a contractor and real estate broker in the State of Ohio for 20 years prior to moving to Florida in 1985. There is no licensing requirement for contractors in the State of Ohio. In January, 1989, Respondent obtained a certified building contractor license in Florida. Respondent was charged with conducting the business of a contractor without being licensed or certified in violation of Section 489.127(1)(F), Florida Statutes. An Information was filed against Respondent in Dade County Court Case Number 89- 89550 on December 8, 1989. The Information charged that Respondent . . . did unlawfully engage in the business or act in the capacity of a contractor without being duly registered or certified, by contracting to perform remodeling work and the construction of an addition to the premises of MR. GARY R. GROSS and/or MRS. GARY R. GROSS, at 740 Allendale Road, Key Biscayne, Dade County, Florida in violation of 489.127(1)(F), Florida Statutes. Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere on June 11, 1990. The court found Respondent guilty of the charge against him. Adjudication was withheld, and Respondent was sentenced to serve 60 days in the county jail. Court costs were assessed against Respondent in the amount of $423. Respondent was placed on probation and allowed to serve 100 hours of community service in lieu of 60 days in the county jail. 4/ Respondent never served time in the county jail. The judgment of the County Court and the court's denial of sworn motions to dismiss filed by Respondent were appealed by Respondent. 5/ Respondent timely filed separate Notices of Appeal on June 25, 1990. The appeals have not been decided and are pending before the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit In and For Dade County, Florida. 6/ Respondent acted as a contractor in the execution of work designed by an architect. Respondent supervised the erection, enlargement, and alteration of a single family residence owned by Mr. and Mrs. Gross and located at 740 Allendale Road, Key Biscayne, Dade County, Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Gross obtained the necessary permits with the county and were listed as the contractor as owner-builder. Architectural plans for the work supervised by Respondent were provided by Philip Ostendorf. Mr. Ostendorf is a duly registered and certified architect in the State of Florida. Respondent arranged for most of the subcontractors, although one subcontractor was provided by Mr. and Mrs. Gross. All of the work was performed in accordance with the architectural plans. Respondent never ". . . honestly believed that he was violating a law." The plea of nolo contendere was entered by Respondent in County Court as a plea of convenience. Respondent always maintained his innocence and filed several sworn motions to dismiss the charges against him. Respondent's appeal includes the judgment against him and the denial of his motions to dismiss.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent should be found not guilty of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 1st day of July, 1991.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to be certified by endorsement as a standard building inspector.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida that certifies standard building inspectors pursuant to the provisions of Part XII of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes (consisting of Sections 468.601 - 468.633). By application dated November 7, 1996, Petitioner applied for certification as a building inspector. This application contemplated that Petitioner would sit for the certification examination. Respondent determined that Petitioner was qualified to sit for the Principles and Practice portion and the Technical portion of the certification examination. Petitioner did not achieve a passing score on the certification examination. Consequently, his application for certification was rejected. By application dated December 22, 1997, Petitioner applied for certification as a building inspector without having to take the licensure examination. This was properly construed by Respondent to be an application for certification by endorsement. Petitioner requested Respondent to waive the certification examination pursuant to the provisions of Section 468.613, Florida Statutes, which provide as follows: The board shall examine other certification of training programs, as applicable, upon submission to the board for the consideration of an application for certification by endorsement. The board shall waive its examination, qualification, education, or training requirements to the extent that such examination, qualification, education, or training requirements are determined by the board to be comparable with those established by the board. By his application dated December 29, 1997, Petitioner sought certification based upon his qualifications1 and upon what his counsel referred to as "substantially equivalent" exams. The "substantially equivalent" exams to which counsel for Petitioner referred were to the examinations Petitioner passed in order to be licensed as a general contractor and as a roofing contractor. Petitioner's application reflects that he passed licensure examinations during 1983 in Broward County and in Dade County in the general contractor category. Petitioner passed a similar examination in Palm Beach County, Florida, in 1986. Part XII of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, was created by Chapter 93-166, Laws of Florida. Prior to 1993, there was no state-wide certification of building inspectors. There was no evidence as to the contents of the examinations Petitioner passed in 1983 and 1986, and there was no evidence as to the contents of the certification examination administered by Respondent to candidates for certification as building inspectors. Consequently, there is no basis upon which a comparison of these examinations can be made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for certification by endorsement be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Glen H. Curd is licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board as a Building Contractor and holds license number RB 0022003. Following a hearing the Building Board of Appeals and Adjustments, Pasco County, Florida, on 4 September 1979 revoked Glen H. Curd's Certificate of Competency (Exhibit 1). Exhibit 1, the minutes of the September 4, 1979, meeting of the Building Board of Appeals and Adjustments, Pasco County, clearly indicates that this board revoked Curd's certificate on grounds of incompetence.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Respondent was licensed as a certified building contractor holding license number CB CO24185. On or about March 14, 1983, Respondent, doing business as Duran Construction Co., contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Butler of San Mateo, Florida, to construct a room addition and freestanding carport at their residence for $6,825. Subsequently, Respondent constructed an aluminum "roof- over" by rate contract for an additional $2,000. Respondent completed the freestanding carport and aluminum roof-over projects without apparent difficulty. However, he began the room addition without obtaining the required building permit from Putnam County. 1/ He obtained an after-the-fact permit about April 21, 1983, but was issued a "correction notice" by the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department on April 22, 1983, ordering all work to cease until the cited deficiencies were corrected. 2/ The chief building inspector arranged to meet Respondent on April 214, 1983, at the construction site. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the corrective measures required on the partially completed room addition. Respondent did not attend this meeting and did no further work on the project. His failure to attend the meeting or continue work was not explained to either the building officials or the property owner. At the time Respondent discontinued work, he had been paid $4,550 on a written contract which covered the finished carport as well as the incomplete room addition. He had also been paid $2,000 for the finished roof-over project which was the subject of an oral contract. Respondent would have been entitled to an additional $2,275 on the written contract had he completed the room addition. By letter of May 6, 1983, the Butlers' attorney advised Respondent that he would initiate legal action against him unless the project was completed by May 13, 1983. However, Mr. Butler had already applied to the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department for reissuance of the permit to himself in place of Respondent. The permit was reissued to Butler on May 6, 1983 and the project was completed without Respondent's further involvement.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(d), F.S., and suspending his contractors license for a period of four months. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of November, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 323301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 1984. 1/ A building permit must be obtained prior to construction. Section 106.1(a), Putnam County Building Code (PCBC). The PCBC is the Southern Standard Building Code adopted by Putnam County Ordinance 83-2. 2/ See Section 103.2, PCBC. The cited deficiencies included insufficient girder support for floor joists and inadequate roof framing with respect to rafters and beam construction. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Dean Arturo Duran 11680 N.W. 15th Lane Ocala, Florida 32675 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a Certified Building Contractor or Residential Contractor.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 44-year-old male. He was born and raised in Tallahassee, Florida. He is a high school graduate. Petitioner passed the examination for licensure as a certified building contractor. This is a comprehensive examination that is designed to test knowledge in all aspects of the construction industry. Passing it is a mandatory prerequisite before an application can be considered by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (FCILB). However, passing the examination does not eliminate or modify the statutory or rule experience requirements. Petitioner submitted his application for a certified building contractor license on or about March 24, 2008. By letter of May 2, 2008, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation requested additional information. Petitioner then provided a revised affidavit from Chad Banks, a certified building contractor, and a letter from the Maintenance Construction Chief of the City of Tallahassee’s Gas Utility Department, each containing more detailed information about Petitioner’s experience. These items were received by Respondent on May 23, 2008. It is not clear whether Petitioner requested and was granted a continuance of his appearance with regard to the instant license application at an earlier FCILB meeting, but on January 15, 2009, the full Board considered Petitioner’s application at a duly-noticed public meeting in Altamonte Springs, Florida. At that time, Petitioner was present. During his appearance before the full Board on January 15, 2009, Petitioner was very nervous, but he believes that one of the Board members offered him, or at least asked him if he would accept, a residential contractor’s license in place of a certified building contractor’s license, and that he answered that he would accept such a license, only to have that “offer and acceptance” voted down by the full Board. However, Petitioner does not rule out the possibility that the vote taken at the meeting was actually with regard to denying the certified building contractor license for which he had applied. There is no evidence that Petitioner has ever submitted an application for a residential contractor’s license. By a Notice of Intent to Deny, dated March 16, 2009, and mailed March 24, 2009, the FCILB formally denied Petitioner’s application for a certified building contractor License stating: The applicant failed to demonstrate the required experience, pursuant to Section 489.111, Florida Statutes and Rule 61G4- 15.001, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner seeks licensure as one who has four years of active experience and who has learned the trade by serving an apprenticeship as a skilled worker or as a foreman, at least one year of which experience is as a foreman. Petitioner has never worked as a full-time employee of a commercial or residential contractor. Petitioner got early experience in construction working around eight rental properties owned by his father. He performed light carpentry, deck construction, general handyman repairs, and some plumbing and roofing when he was approximately 16 to 21 years of age. However, Petitioner essentially relies on a work history that includes working as a plumber for Jim Bennett Plumbing from 1987 to 1993; as a foreman for the City of Tallahassee Gas Department from 1995 to 2005; as a “contractor trainee” for Chad Banks from 1999 to 2002; as having volunteered as superintendent for Gulf Coast Painting from 2003 to 2007; and as a maintenance man for the City of Tallahassee Parks Department from 2006 to 2007. Petitioner’s dates of employment overlap, because his volunteer experience was acquired mostly on weekends, holidays, in hours after he had already completed a full work day for the City of Tallahassee, or on “time off” from his regular employments with the City. Petitioner is a hard worker and wanted to learn the construction trade, but his volunteer construction jobs were intermittent, and he provided no clear assessment of the number of hours per week or month that he put in for any of them. From 1987 to 1993, Petitioner worked for Jim Bennett Plumbing. He started as a plumber’s helper and progressed to greater responsibility. In that position, he acquired a wide range of experience in plumbing for some residential, but mostly commercial, buildings. During this period, he also did some light cosmetic carpentry and tile work to restore building parts damaged by the installation of plumbing apparatus. Much of Petitioner’s construction experience relates to his association with Chad Banks, who testified that at all times material, Petitioner had “hands on” experience, working for him and that Petitioner was a competent worker. Petitioner has never been a “W-2 employee” of Mr. Banks, but there is no specific statutory or rule requirement that the experience necessary to qualify for the certified building contractor or the residential contractor license must be as a “W-2 employee.” Cf. Conclusions of Law. Mr. Banks was not licensed as a certified building contractor until 1999. Petitioner did some work for Mr. Banks when Mr. Banks was working as a sub-contractor on commercial projects (specifically one or more Super-Lube buildings) prior to Mr. Banks obtaining his certified building contractor’s license in 1999. Most of this employment involved pouring concrete slabs. Petitioner claims experience in “elevated slabs,” limited to the construction of a single Super-Lube building, which Petitioner described as laying a slab below ground level for mechanics to stand on and an at-ground level slab for cars to drive onto the lift for an oil change. He described no truly “elevated” slabs or floors above ground level on this project, and Petitioner’s and Mr. Banks’ testimony was vague as to Petitioner’s responsibilities on this project and as to the project’s duration. The general contractor on this project for whom Mr. Banks “subbed” did not testify. From this, and other employments, Petitioner has experience pouring foundation slabs, but he has never worked on a foundation slab in excess of 20,000 square feet. Petitioner also assisted in Mr. Banks’ construction of some rental sheds, but it is unclear if this was before or after Mr. Banks was licensed. Petitioner worked for Mr. Banks d/b/a C. B. Construction, Inc., in a volunteer capacity on exclusively residential construction from 1999 to 2002, and again from February 2004 to March 2008. During these periods, Petitioner and Mr. Banks considered Petitioner a “contractor trainee,” but Petitioner’s work for Mr. Banks was neither exclusive nor continuous; both men described it as “volunteer” work; and some of it seems to have amounted to Petitioner's looking over work done personally by Mr. Banks and having Mr. Banks explain to him, via a plan sheet, what Mr. Banks had already done personally. There is no evidence that during this time frame Petitioner worked for Mr. Banks as a foreman. Petitioner has the ability to “read” many types of construction “plans.” Petitioner has experience with slab footers, but he has not constructed red iron structural steel qualified for framing a building. Petitioner has experience in decorative masonry walls, but he has not constructed structural masonry walls of a type that would support framing members of a building or other vertical construction. Petitioner also worked for the City of Tallahassee as a “W-2” employee, mostly as a foreman overseeing a crew of four workers, from 1995 to 2005. In that capacity, he worked on a church, but the church itself had been constructed several years previously, and Petitioner’s crew’s contribution was tying-in several gas lines during a roadway development project and keeping all the utilities up and running during the project, while a private contractor worked on the church. With regard to the foregoing project and many others for the City Utilities Department, Petitioner directed a crew that built sidewalks and gutters or that tied these features into existing roadways and driveways. In that capacity, he often coordinated activities with residential contractors. Over his ten years’ employment with the City Utilities, Petitioner also directed a crew that exclusively created underground vaults for the housing and shelter of utility apparatus. However, none of his endeavors for the City Utilities involved vertical structural construction for floors above ground. Petitioner has also built new gas stations for the City’s natural gas vehicles, and has erected pre-fab utility buildings, including much slab work, but the nature and duration of these endeavors is not sufficiently clear to categorize them as qualifying him for the certified building contractor license. Most of Petitioner’s experience with the City, as substantiated by the letter of the City Utilities Maintenance Construction Chief, Mr. Lavine, has been in the construction of driveways, roads, gutters, storm drains, sidewalks, culverts, underground utility structures, plumbing and gas lines. While it is accepted that Petitioner has worked on such projects, this type of work more properly falls in the categories of “plumbing contractor” or “underground utility contractor” and Mr. Lavine was not demonstrated to have any certification/licensure in a category appropriate to Petitioner’s application. (See Conclusions of Law.) Sometime after 2005, for approximately a year, Petitioner was employed by the City of Tallahassee Parks and Recreation Department and in that capacity participated in at least one construction of a dugout and a concession stand at one of its playgrounds. He also did repairs on several dugouts and concession stands, but this latter work would not be classified as “structural” construction. Petitioner’s experience in precast concrete structures is limited to his work with gas utility structures, but does not include work on precast tilt walls, which are the type of walls that are constructed off-site, delivered to the job site, placed on the slab foundation, and raised in place as part of an on- going commercial building project. Petitioner has no experience in column erection. “Columns” in this context within the construction trade refers to supports for upper level structural members, which would entail vertical construction. Petitioner’s experience in concrete formwork does not include experience in the structurally reinforced concrete formwork that would be used in vertical buildings, such as all floors above ground level. FCILB’s Chairman testified that the Board interprets the type of experience necessary to comply with the statutes and rules, more particularly Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4- 15.001(2), to be “structural experience.” There is no affirmative evidence that Petitioner has ever notified the Clerk of the Agency that he was relying on a right to a default license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order denying Petitioner’s application for licensure as a Certified Building Contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 2009.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Jonas C. Merricks, Respondent, was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board, Petitioner, as a residential building contractor. In May 1981 Respondent was approached by John Oden regarding a building permit to add a room to the residence of Ms. Betty J. Wilson. Respondent testified he went to see Ms. Wilson to discuss the permit before pulling the permit; however, Ms. Wilson testified she did not see Respondent until after the word started. Regardless of the correct version Respondent pulled the permit for the construction knowing that he was not going to do the work. On May 23, 1981 Ms. Wilson entered into a contract with John Oden to construct an additional room on her residence. This contract was modified on May 26, 1981 to enlarge the room two feet and it is this contract (Exhibit 3), upon which the work was done. The contract made no mention of Respondent or of J & J Building Company which is owned by Respondent. Under the terms of the contract Ms. Wilson was to pay Oden one-third when walls were up, one-third when the roof was on and the final one-third when the job was completed. During the course of the construction Respondent appeared on the site a few times and straightened out existing problems. Ms. Wilson made all of her payments to Oden in accordance with the contract. However, she made the final payment before the work was completed. Her attempts to get Oden to satisfactorily complete the job were unsuccessful and Ms. Wilson complained to the Bureau of Consumer Affairs who referred her complaint to the Construction Industry Licensing Board which investigated and filed the complaint here under consideration. No evidence was submitted that Respondent pulled permits for work done by J & J Building Company. Evidence was presented that J & J Building Company is not licensed by petitioner. Respondent testified that he pulled the permit as a favor to Ms. Wilson and not for Oden, and that he did not know Oden had contracted with Ms. Wilson to do this job. However, Respondent did know that Oden was going to build the addition for Ms. Wilson; and, in his affidavit, Exhibit 5, Respondent acknowledged he had "helped out" Oden several times, that he was paid by Oden for work Respondent did on the premises, that payment for this work was made out to J & J Building Company, and that he supervised the work when he was on the premises.
Findings Of Fact William W. Carlton, Respondent, is licensed in Florida as a building contractor, holds license No. CB CO 10455, and was so licensed at all times here relevant (Exhibit 1) In February, 1980, Hays and Sons Construction Company (Hays) entered into a contract with Ken and Ethel Moore to construct a metal building to serve as a filling station and car repair facility in Spring Hill. Hays is not licensed as a building contractor in Florida and Respondent held no office in Hays, had no authority to make management decisions on behalf of Hays, contract on behalf of Hays, or hire subcontractors for Hays. The building permit for the construction of the Spring Hill filling station was pulled by Respondent and listed Respondent as builder (Exhibit 9). Respondent did interior woodwork in the building, room layouts, etc., while Hays hired all of his subcontractors and did the overall supervision of the work. Respondent testified that he visited the site frequently, usually after working hours, to see that the project was progressing properly. Dan Hays, principal in Hays and Sons Construction Company, is a capable builder of metal buildings and, although not licensed in Florida, has erected such buildings at numerous places in the United States. Hays hired and paid the subcontractors on this project. By letter dated November 11, 1980, Moore filed a complaint with the Hernando County Building Department alleging that his building had not `been completed according to plans and specifications, some subcontractors had not been paid, that Hays was not licensed and the permit was pulled by Carlson, and that Carlson denies responsibility for the completion of the work. A hearing was scheduled by the Construction Board of Examiners on this complaint and Respondent was notified of the time and place of hearing and advised to be present. Before the scheduled date of the hearing, the issues raised in the complaint had been settled and the complaint withdrawn by the complainant. Respondent called the Building Department respecting the necessity of him attending the scheduled hearing and was advised the complaint had been withdrawn and that he need not attend. At the scheduled hearing, the Board expected Respondent to give an explanation and, when Respondent did not show, the Board suspended his privilege of pulling permits until he appeared before the Board at its next scheduled meeting. Respondent appeared at the next scheduled meeting of the Board and his permit pulling authority was reinstated. On April 29, 1981, Hays entered into a contract to construct a steel building for Harold and Evelyn Walkowz in New Port Richey, Florida, at a price of $119,000. The building permit for this job was pulled July 28, 1981, by William Carlson as contractor (Exhibit 10). After construction commenced, the contract was assigned to Respondent (Exhibit 12) Walkowz initially made payments in accordance with the draw schedule but as the contract progressed disputes between the owner and the builder developed and payments were not made on schedule. Walkowz' brother-in-law, John Smith, put up most of the money for the building and arrived on the scene when the project was about half finished. His arrival coincided with the disputes regarding the work being done, with the subcontractors and with the Respondent. Several of the subcontractors' due payment were not paid by Respondent because the payment due from the owners was not received by Respondent. Some of these subcontractors left the job, other threatened to leave and were assured by the owners that they would be paid, while another group of subcontractors were paid by the owners to keep them from leaving. Prior to paying these three subcontractors (Exhibit 15) , Walkowz' attorney prepared Exhibit 13, which Respondent signed in order to get these subcontractors paid. After Walkowz had paid some $93,000 to Respondent (and Hays), further payments were stopped. At this time, sub- contractors were owed approximately $16,000 and the building was not completed. Respondent offered to complete the building if the balance of the contract price owed was placed in escrow (Exhibit 20). Walkowz refused to place the money in escrow, did not pay the subcontractors he had promised would be paid, used the funds still owed on the contract to complete the building, charged Respondent with wrongfully appropriating his money, and complained to the building department. Criminal charges of grand theft were brought against Respondent. At a hearing on these charges, Respondent pleaded nolo contendere, adjudication was withheld, and Respondent was placed on probation for five years. After a hearing on restitution, the court directed no restitution be paid by Respondent to Walkowz. Respondent maintained only one operating account into which he intermingled funds received on building contracts concurrently in progress. No evidence was submitted that Respondent diverted funds received from Walkowz to any other specific project. Testimony of one witness that Respondent said he diverted funds received from Walkowz to other projects was denied by Respondent. Further, no evidence was presented that because of the diversion of funds Respondent was unable to complete the Walkowz project. In installing the main air conditioner, the unit was located at a place slightly different than shown on the approved plan. Similarly, a wall was moved a few inches to cover an error made in the installation of plumbing lines. These changes were made with the knowledge and consent of the owner and while inspections of the work were being conducted by officials of the Pasco County Building Department. The contract provided for laying 1,350 cubic yards of black top one inch thick over a four-inch limerock base. Building codes and zoning requirements would not authorize the paving of an area this size on the property and, to comply with the code prescribed allowable impervious area requirements, less black top was used. Similarly, the contract provided for the slab on which the building was erected to be 3,000 psi. concrete. The concrete was routinely tested, with the results received after the building was erected. The test showed the concrete to be 2,500 psi. strength. This information was made known to the owner and, in lieu of tearing down the building and repouring the slab, allowances were made for other changes in the contract requested by the owner For a short period of time a company called Carobu appeared on a sign in front of the Walkowz construction site. This was the trio comprised of Carlton, Roth and Burns, who intended to contract under that name, with Carlson as qualifying officer. The company was never incorporated nor did it ever contract to do any construction work.
