Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a registered residential contractor having been issued license number RR 0040275. In approximately 1980, Respondent entered into a contract to erect a screen room for a Mr. Lewis. Under the terms of the contract, Respondent was to obtain the necessary building permit. After the contract had been signed, Respondent's grandfather died, and Respondent therefore went to New Jersey. He left the permit application with his qualifying agent to sign and process through the building department. When Respondent returned from New Jersey approximately 30 to 35 days later, he went to the Lewis job site and found the project almost completed. Respondent did not check to ascertain if the permit had been obtained, but rather completed the screen room himself. Lewis subsequently contacted Respondent to say that he had received a notice of violation from the building department for erecting a screen room without a permit. Respondent contacted the building department and advised that it was not Lewis's fault, but rather that it was Respondent's responsibility to pull the permit. Respondent was charged with unlawfully erecting a screen room without a permit; he appeared in court and pled guilty; and he paid a $250 fine pursuant to the adjudication of guilt entered on April 20, 1981, in the County Court in and for Dade County, Florida, in Case No. 81-50438. On June 24, 1981, Respondent submitted to the Construction Industry Licensing Board a Contractor's Registration application. On that application, Respondent answered in the negative the following question: "Has any person named in (i) below ever been convicted of any offense in this state or elsewhere other than traffic violations?" At the time Respondent gave that answer, he believed it to be true. He understood the question to call for information on criminal acts and did not comprehend the "screen room" charge to have been criminal conduct. Since Respondent answered that question in the negative, his application for registration was processed in accordance with normal procedures. Had Respondent answered that question in the affirmative, his application would not have gone through normal processing but rather would have been presented to the Construction Industry Licensing Board for the Board's determination of whether to approve the application based upon a consideration of the facts. On November 22, 1982, Respondent contracted with Naomi Blanton to construct an addition to Blanton's home located in the City of Miami, in Dade County, Florida, for a contract price of $11,250. When Respondent had first met with Blanton several months earlier, he had told her he could guarantee completion of the project within 45 days. No contract was entered into at that time, however, since Blanton had not obtained the financing she needed in order to construct an addition. When the contract was signed on November 22, Respondent told Blanton he would start the job when he finished the Chamber of Commerce building he was con structing but that he was starting a 12-unit duplex project around Christmas and would not be able to guarantee any 45-day completion deadline. Accordingly, when the contract was signed, no completion date was included in the terms of that written contract, since Respondent did not know when he could guarantee completion. The Blanton contract written by Respondent specifically provided that Respondent would obtain the building permit. On December 22 and 23, 1982, two of Respondent's employees arrived at the Blanton job site, dug a trench, knocked down the utility room, and moved Mrs. Blanton's washing machine. No further work was done until January 1983. Since Respondent knew that he was required to obtain the building permit before commencing any construction work, Respondent submitted his plans and permit application to the City of Miami Building Department. After the plans had been there about a week, he was advised that his plans would not be accepted unless they were drawn by an architect, although that is not required by the South Florida Building Code. After attempting several more times to obtain approval from the City of Miami Building Department, Respondent hired an architect to redraw the plans and secure the building permit. By this time, Respondent found himself unable to concentrate on operating his business efficiently, since he was preoccupied with spending time with his father who was dying of cancer. Also by this time, Blanton had commenced telephone calls to Respondent on an almost daily basis as late as 11:00 p.m. at his office, at his home, at his mother's home, and at his father's home. Respondent offered to return Blanton's deposit, but she refused to cancel the contract and threatened Respondent that she would sue him if he did not comply with that contract. Respondent commenced working on the Blanton job, although no permit had yet been obtained. The contract on the Blanton job called for payments at certain stages of the construction. By January 27, 1983, Respondent had completed a sufficient amount of the work under the contract so that Blanton had paid him a total of $8,270 in accordance with the draw schedule contained in the contract. Respondent ceased working on January 27, 1983, and advised Blanton and her attorney that he would do no further work until he could obtain the building permit, which he had still not been able to obtain. Although he told them his work stoppage was due to his continued inability to obtain the permit, he also stopped work due to his father's illness and his continued inability to get along with Mrs. Blanton. A delay occurred with the plans being redrawn by the architect Respondent hired to obtain the Blanton building permit, since the architect needed information from Blanton and she was out of town. After Blanton returned, the architect made unsuccessful attempts to obtain the building permit. Respondent and his architect were finally able to speak to one of the top personnel in the City of Miami Building Department about the problems they were experiencing in obtaining a building permit, and, at about the same time, Blanton contacted that same individual to complain that Respondent had no permit. On May 4, 1983, the building department finally accepted the second permit application together with the plans drawn by the architect, and the building permit was issued on May 4, 1983. No work was performed on the Blanton job between January 27, 1983, when Blanton paid Respondent the draw to which he was entitled by that date, and May 4, 1983, when the building permit was finally issued by the City of Miami. Respondent immediately resumed work and quickly completed the next stage of construction called for under the Blanton contract. Upon completing that next stage, he requested his next draw payment; however, Blanton decided not to pay Respondent for the work completed and had her attorney advise Respondent not to return to the job site. Blanton then had a friend of her son come to Miami from Wisconsin to complete the addition to her home. At all times material hereto, Respondent held a certificate of competency issued by Metropolitan Dade County.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by willfully and deliberately violating Section 301(a) of the South Florida Building Code; imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $2,000 to be paid by a date certain; and dismissing the remaining charges contained in the Administrative Complaint, as amended, against Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 13th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Joseph F. Scioli, Jr. 246 North Krome Avenue Florida City, Florida 33034 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact 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.
The Issue The issues presented in this action are based upon an administrative complaint from the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation against Milton T. Warren. Through the administrative complaint, Respondent is charged with violation of Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, in that he willfully or deliberately disregarded and violated applicable building codes in the course of his involvement with a project in Palatka, Florida known as the Ginn job. In particular, Respondent is accused of continuing to work on the project with disregard for a notice of correction left at the job site and that he covered unapproved work in that he removed a stop work order at the job site without prior authorization. The specific references to local building codes by citation shall be made in the conclusions of law.
Findings Of Fact Milton T. Warren is a registered general contractor licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, license number RG 0029984. Respondent made a contract with J. A. Ginn to construct an addition to the Ginn residence which is located at Herja Acre Lane in Palatka, Putnam County, Florida. To construct the project, Respondent obtained a building permit from the Putnam County Building-Zoning and Inspections Department. That permit was obtained on August 24, 1982. A request was made for an inspection related to framing involved in the Ginn project. That inspection was conducted by the Putnam County Building Department in the person of Richard F. Richter, Chief Building Inspector, Putnam County. The date of the inspection was September 21, 1982. At the time of the inspection, Richter felt the header over the exterior door in the utility room addition which was being attached to the sides of the residence was not sufficient. This door is depicted in a photograph, Petitioner's Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence. In addition, Richter did not feel that the extensions to the existing joists in the roof at the residence by nailing additional length to the joists at each individual member was in keeping with the requirements of the Southern Building Code. These joists constituted structural framing for the roof. At all times relevant, the Southern Building Code had application in keeping with a Putnam County Ordinance, No. 73-6. These joist extensions are depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit 5 admitted into evidence which is a photograph taken at the time of the inspection of September 21, 1982. Richter felt that any splicing that would be allowed must be done over a load-bearing wall and as depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit 5, the splicing was not done over a load-bearing wall. At the time this inspection occurred, the project had been dried in but the interior sheetrock had not been placed in the area of the joist extensions or on the walls of the utility area. Having discovered what he perceived to be deficiencies related to framing, Richter left a notice of correction attached to a tree which is shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 4 and is immediately adjacent to the outside door in the utility area. A copy of that notice of correction may be found as part of composite Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence as attachment 3 to that Exhibit. It stated that "corrections required before proceeding or covering this work: change header over door . . . see bldg. inspector regarding spliced ceiling rafters." The notice also indicated a phone number to call when corrections had been effected. The notice did not otherwise state how to solve the problem with the matters of joists. On the same date as the inspection was made, the Respondent received the correction notice from one of his workers on the Ginn job. In an effort to comply with the instructions set out on the correction notice, he tried to contact the Building Department to discuss the concerns expressed by the inspector. He was unsuccessful in this effort. At the time that Respondent was made aware of the correction notice, the work had not been covered up inside the building related to the placement of sheetrock on walls and ceiling. The work was covered in on the following day per the instruction of Respondent to his employee to place the sheetrock. His remarks to the employee at that time was that the ceiling joists were adequate. The sheetrock was placed prior to any conversation between Respondent and the building department of Putnam County reference concerns about the ceiling joists. On October 5, 1982, Robert H. Boone, Electrical Inspector for Putnam County, went to the Ginn property to ascertain the status of matters related to the correction notice, in view of the fact that Richter had not heard from Respondent about items set forth in the correction notice. The request that Boone check the job site was made by Richter. When Boone arrived at the job site, he discovered that the ceiling joists had been covered in with sheetrock. He then called and spoke with a Mr. Michaels, who was the Building Code Administrator in Putnam County at that time. In keeping with Michaels' instruction a stop work order was posted on the same tree as was discussed in the details related to the correction notice. That stop work order informed the contractor on the job not to proceed with any further work before contacting Putnam County building officials. It also contained an admonition not to remove the stop work order. At that time the work was approximately 98 percent complete. On October 5, 1982, Respondent became aware of the stop work order and took down that stop work sign from its placement on the tree. No effort at compliance with the stop work order was made, the job having been substantially completed. Respondent attempted to contact the building department regarding the stop work order, but was unsuccessful. Subsequent to October 5, 1982, Richter, by correspondence dated October 21, 1982, wrote to William J. Tangye, P.E., Executive Director of Southern Building Code Congress International, to obtain an opinion about the acceptability of splicing of joists over other than a load-bearing wall. That correspondence contained a sketch supplied by Respondent related to the joist circumstance. The query to the Southern Building Code official was one of whether splicing was in accordance with requirements of Southern Building Code and good construction practices, related to approval of the project by the building inspector. A copy of this letter may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 6, admitted into evidence. The letter was answered by Tangye, and a copy of that correspondence may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 7, admitted into evidence. Tangye did not feel that the construction was in compliance with the Southern Building Code requirements and recommended the submission of additional data to establish the ability of the roofs to provide necessary continuity. The project was later accepted by Putnam County based upon an engineering report vouching for the propriety of Respondent's choice to splice the joists other than over a load-bearing wall. At the time Respondent determined on September 21, 1982, to cover in the joist members, he felt that the joist was sufficiently constructed to comply with requirements for inspection. Ultimately, his work was accepted by the Putnam County Building Department. Respondent claims that on September 21, 1982, upon examining the correction notice, that the statement to see the building inspector about the spliced ceiling rafters was not a statement of disapproval. That perception on the part of Respondent is not accepted. It is found that the correction notice clearly contemplated that Respondent should contact the Putnam County Building Department before covering the joists by the placement of sheetrock, and Respondent willfully disregarded this indication that the spliced ceiling rafters had not been approved and proceeded to cover that work without the necessary approval from the Putnam County Building Department.
Recommendation Based upon a full consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which imposes an administrative find of one thousand dollars ($1,000). DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November 1983 at Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas H. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tim Keyser, Esquire Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, Florida 32048 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
