Findings Of Fact On October 10, 1979, the Respondent entered into a written swimming pool contract with Mr. and Mrs. Stellato, wherein the Respondent agreed to construct a swimming pool for them on their property in accordance with the plans and specifications attached to the contract. Among other things this swimming pool contract provided for the payment of a total purchase price of $11,225.00 to be paid in the following manner: ten percent to be paid at the signing of the contract. fifty percent to be paid upon the installation of the tank. thirty-five percent to be paid upon completion of the base decking and screen enclosure. five percent, or the balance of the purchase price, to be paid when the filter system was put in operation. Further, this contract provided that if the purchasers of the swimming pool failed to pay the purchase price in accordance with the prescribed schedule, the contractor reserved the right to suspend all work on the swimming pool, and to suspend all warranty work due after completion of the pool. During the month of February, 1980, the Respondent, acting through his duly authorized representatives, did all acts necessary to cause the filter system of the subject swimming pool to become operable, and requested that the Stellatos pay the five percent balance due under the contract. The Stellatos failed to make this final payment, claiming that there was a problem with the pool decking. In response to this complaint the Respondent personally met with the Stellatos, and agreed to cover the problem area of the decking with Chattahoochee River Rock at no cost to the Stellatos. In exchange for this agreement the Stellatos agreed to pay the balance due under the contract. Thereupon, the Respondent installed Chattahoochee River Rock over a substantial portion of the decking at his own expense. During the installation of this Chattahoochee River Rock, Mrs. Stellato contacted the Respondent by phone and demanded that he also install, at his own expense, Chattahoochee River Rock over an existing concrete patio area that had not been built by the Respondent. The Respondent refused to incur this additional expense, because it was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. Thereafter, the Stellatos again failed to pay the balance due under the contract. The subject swimming pool was inspected by an inspector for Palm Bay, and the City issued a certificate of occupancy in June of 1980. The pool was ready for a certificate of occupancy in February of 1980 except for the removal of one pile of dirt that still remained on the premises. All other aspects of the pool construction passed inspection in February of 1980 when the pool filter system was activated. Since February Of 1980, the Stellatos have had full use of the subject swimming pool. Except for alleging that some low spots remain in the pool decking, the Petitioner offered no substantial evidence of any other significant problem with the Respondent's construction. Notwithstanding the failure of the Stellatos to pay the balance of the contract price in a timely manner, the Respondent performed warranty work on the subject swimming pool after February of 1980. During the course of this warranty work the Respondent added chlorine chemicals to the pool because the Stellatos had failed to properly maintain it up to June of 1980. Another claim concerning a leaking pipe on the pool sweep did not manifest itself until April of 1981, after the expiration of the one year warranty period afforded by the Respondent to all customers. The Petitioner offered no evidence to show that the leak in this pipe was caused by the Respondent. Notwithstanding the expiration of the warranty period, and the lack of evidence to show that the leak was caused by the Respondent, he did send an employee to the job site and stopped the water leak, at no cost to the Stellatos. On several occasions when the Respondent or his employees attempted to satisfy the complaints of the Stellatos, they had to leave the job site because of the abusive language and conduct directed toward them by the Stellatos. In one instance Mr. Stellato ordered the Respondent's employees from the job site and prevented performance of any work under the contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint, as amended, against John W. Thornett be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 9 day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1982.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's products, the Transfer Tier and the Easy Ladder, should be approved for use in public swimming pools throughout the State of Florida?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner manufactures the products under review in this case: the Transfer Tier and the Easy Ladder (hereinafter referred to as the "Products"). The Products are designed and intended for use by the aged and disabled in entering and exiting swimming pools. The Easy Ladder is intended to be used by people who are able to walk but have difficulty in using a traditional swimming pool vertical ladder. The Transfer Tier is intended for use by people with more disabling handicaps. The Products are intended to be used as portable devices which are not left in the swimming pool. There is nothing to prevent purchasers of the Products, however, from leaving the Products in a swimming pool for extended periods of time. Although designed for use by the aged and disabled, either Product can be used by anyone in the same manner that steps are used. By letter dated May 7, 1986, the Petitioner requested a review of the Products by the Respondent and approval of the Products for use in Florida public swimming pools. The Respondent reviewed the Products and determined that both Products failed to meet the requirements of the Respondent's Rules. The Products are made of fiberglass. When placed in a swimming pool there are areas of the swimming pool and parts of the Products which cannot be seen. Therefore, algae and sediment in the pool can go undetected. Although the Products are intended to be used as portable devices, they can be left in the pool. Additionally, although all areas of the Products are accessible so that algae formation can be prevented, the Products would have to be removed from the pool in order to gain access. The Products are not designed to be installed as a part of a swimming pool. The front edge intersections and the treads and risers of the steps of the Products do not have contrasting colored stripes on the risers of the steps at least two inches wide. The handrails on the Products are not anchored in the pool deck or the bottom step. There are no nationally recognized standards for the Products. The Products are within limits of sound engineering practice. The metallic handrails of the Products and the metallic legs of the Transfer Tier are not to be bonded to other metallic parts of the swimming pool with copper wire no smaller than No. 8 wire. These metallic parts of the Products will be touching the side and bottom of the swimming pool. The metallic parts are not fixed to the swimming pool. They are also not separated from the pool by a permanent barrier. The Transfer Tier is not designed to fit completely flush with the swimming pool wall and floor. Additionally, either Product, if not properly placed in a swimming pool will not fit completely flush with the swimming pool floor. Therefore, the Products will not preclude entanglement or obstruction which could result in the submerged entrapment of bathers. By letter dated May 30, 1986, the Petitioner was informed by the Respondent that the Products failed to comply with the Respondent's Rules. By letter dated July 2, 1986, the Petitioner requested a formal hearing to contest the denial of the Petitioner's application and requested a review of the Respondent's decision by the Public Swimming and Bathing Facilities Advisory Review Board. The Public Swimming and Bathing Facilities Advisory Review Board unanimously approved the Respondent's decision. There is a need in Florida for the type of products proposed by the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order denying approval of the Products for use in public swimming pools in the State of Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 24th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3999 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection Deficiency No. 1 3 and 7. Deficiency Nos. 2 & 3 Irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 4 and 9. Deficiency No. 4 11. Deficiency No. 5 12. Deficiency No. 6 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 Hereby accepted. 2 2. 3 5. 4 6. 4a Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 4b 9. 4c 10. 4d Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 4e The first sentence is accepted in 12. The conclusion of law of the second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 4f 13. 5 14. 6 15. 7 16. 8 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 9. Irrelevant. 10 The first sentence is accepted in 17. The rest of the paragraph is irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Michael O. Mathis, Esquire Senior Staff Attorney Office of Licensure and Certification Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Frances Daly President and Marketing Director Triad Technologies, Inc. 4000 Galster Road East Syracuse, New York 13057
Findings Of Fact John and Enid Schmidt own property located at 2363 Pineland Lane, Clearwater, Florida. This Property is zoned RS-50 (single family) and is located at the City-County line with Pineland Lane dividing the incorporated and unincorporated areas at this location. The house is L-shaped and due to the lot configuration the swimming pool was placed in the L at the front of the house. This pool is screened and has been screened since it was installed some four years ago. Petitioners propose to extend the screen room 10.75 feet into the front setback area of 25 feet. The purpose of the extension is to enable Petitioners to roof this extension, apply additional roofing on two other sides of the pool enclosure, and install gutters with appropriate drains to carry off the rainwater that is now backing up against the house at the pool deck during heavy rains. When the pool was originally constructed, a French drain was installed to allow the rainwater to flow around the house; however, during recent heavy rains this drain has been inadequate to keep water from rising to the level of Petitioner's sliding glass doors. To alleviate the situation engineers have recommended the additional roofing and gutters requested to carry this water away from the pool-house area. Five of Petitioners neighbors, including the two closest to Petitioners' property, do not oppose the variance requested (Exhibit 5). One of these neighbors testified in support of the application.
The Issue The issue is whether the swimming pool permit no. 46-181-84 and spa permit no. 46-241-87 for Fords Gym and Health Spa should be revoked pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 10D-5 and Chapter 514, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Larry Ford owns and operated a swimming pool and a spa (whirlpool) in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. On May 10, 1988, and September 29, 1988, Mr. Ford's pool and spa were inspected and found to be in violation of Florida law. It was necessary to close the pool and spa on both of these occasions because there were several violations pertaining to the chlorine level and ph level, and also required equipment was disconnected or inoperable. Mr. Ford's pool was inspected on September 27, 1990, and the inspector found the chlorine and the ph feeder were disconnected. Also on September 27, 1990, the spa chlorine was below adequate level and the temperature was too high. The chlorinator and ph feeder were disconnected. The spa was closed based on these violations. On November 30, 1990, the spa was found to have inadequate chlorine and the chlorinator was disconnected. Due to these violations the spa was closed. On March 13, 1991, violations were found in the spa. The chlorine feeder was disconnected, the chlorine was low, the ph was below the adequate level and the ph feeder was disconnected. The spa was then closed. On April 11, 1991, the pool was inspected based on a complaint and found to have several violations of the Florida Administrative Code to include water level too high, no depth markers, broken scum gutter, inoperable underwater lights, missing "no diving" signs, and toilet seats without open fronts. On January 14, 1992, the spa was closed because of no chlorine and the chlorinator and the ph feeder were disconnected. Mr. Ford's pool and spa were closed again on March 2, 1992, due to violations. The facilities were reinspected on March 5, 1992, and remained closed because the violations had not been corrected. These violations included: No chlorine in the pool PH level was low. Automatic chlorinator and automatic ph feeder were not connected. On March 19, 1992, the HRS investigator was denied access to the pool and spa during an inspection visit. When the pool and spa were inspected on March 24, 1992, both the pool and the spa contained several violations to include no safety line in the pool, disconnected chlorinator and ph feeder; missing depth markers were missing, missing "no diving" signs, water level was too high, and the drinking fountain was clogged. On May 20, 1992, the HRS inspector was denied access to the pool and spa for a routine inspection. HRS, Okaloosa County Public Health Unit, had closed Mr. Fords pool in August 1991. Mr. Ford instructed an employee to pull down the signs in which HRS had posted to close the pool and he further allowed clients into the pool during the time that it was closed. During 1991, Mr. Ford did not utilize a chlorine or ph feeder as required by the Florida Administrative Code and instructed employees to hand feed the pool, bypassing the feeder system. On April 1, and April 2, 1992, Mr. Ford allowed clients to use the pool. During this time HRS had closed the pool due to violations. During the months of January and February, 1992, Mr. Ford's engineer drafted proposed modifications for the swimming pool filtering system and replacement of the chlorinator. According to Mr. Ford this work was completed; however, HRS never received notice of completion of the modification from the pool engineer as required by the Florida Administrative Code. As a result the pool was never inspected by HRS after the modifications were made and recertified.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services revoke pool permit No. 46-181-84 and spa permit no. 46-241-87. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 26th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX A Both the parties filed proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which of the proposed findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Findings: Proposed Order: Paragraph 1-12 Paragraph 1-12 Respondent's Findings: Proposed Order: Unnumbered Paragraphs in Rejected as the Findings of Fact Arguement. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Wade, Esquire 468 North Main Street Post Office Box 785 Crestview, Florida 34536 Frank C. Bozeman, III, Esquire HRS District 1 Legal Office Post Office Box 8420 Pensacola, FL 32505-8420 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Atlas Pools, Inc., contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Thompson in May, 1978, to construct a swimming pool on the Thompson property for a completed price of $5,940. Work ceased in mid-July, 1978, by which time the Thompsons had paid Atlas Pools $5,643. The Thompsons hired another pool contractor to complete the project at additional cost in excess of $2,000. Atlas Pools contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Perry in June, 1978, to construct a swimming pool on the Perry property for a completed cost of $5,770. Work ceased in late July, 1978, after the Perrys had paid Atlas Pools $5,474.50. The Perrys completed the project through self-help and use of another pool contractor at a further cost of $1,566. Atlas Pools contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Wolters in June, 1978, to construct a swimming pool on the Wolters' property for a completed cost of $6,980. Work ceased in mid-July, 1978, after the Wolters had paid Atlas Pools $6,631. The Wolters completed the pool through self help at an additional cost in excess of $1,300. Atlas Pools contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Albert Sentman in June, 1978, to construct a spa on the Sentman property for a completed cost of $5,500. The Sentmans paid Atlas Pools a $550 deposit after which the spa was delivered but not installed. The Sentmans completed the project by other means at an additional cost of $6,137. Respondent abandoned each of the above projects without notice to the customer, who ultimately learned of the company's bankruptcy from a third party source. Each of the four projects described above was completed at a final cost to the purchaser in excess of $900 over the contract price. The company filed a Voluntary Petition of Bankruptcy with the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, on August 1, 1978. Thereafter, on March 7, 1979, the Brevard County Contractors Licensing Board revoked the certificate held by Atlas Pools for a minimum period of one year, with the requirement that financial rehabilitation be demonstrated as a condition of reinstatement. At the time of bankruptcy, Respondent was president of Atlas Pools, Inc., and owned one-third of the stock. He was, at all times relevant to this proceeding, the company's only licensed pool contractor. He is currently employed in pool construction work by a licensed contractor. Proposed findings of fact were submitted by the parties. To the extent these proposed findings have not been adopted herein or are inconsistent with the above findings, they have been specifically rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Pool Contractor's License No. RP 0018040 issued to Crawford L. Grove, be suspended until Respondent demonstrates compliance with the financial responsibility standards established by Section 489.115, Florida Statutes (1979). DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1980.
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent's license as a registered pool contractor should be revoked or otherwise penalized based on the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, William Losciale, was a licensed registered pool contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RP-0032951, by the State of Florida, and was the qualifier of Lynn Pools. On or about October 2, 1987, John J. Kerry entered into a contract with Respondent d/b/a Lynn Pools for the Respondent to construct a pool and screen enclosure on Mr. Kerry's property located at 633 South Little John Street in Inverness, Florida. The total cost of the pool and enclosure was $19,600.00. During construction various problems developed. Among them were delays in completion, the failure to obtain the proper permits, the installation of an inadequate and improper filter, the delayed removal of excavated dirt, the gouging up of the homeowner's yard, and the improper positioning of the septic tank after relocation. At the time the pool deck was being designed, the homeowner told the Respondent that it appeared to the homeowner that the deck was slanted towards the house and would cause flooding problems. The Respondent told the homeowner that the Respondent knew what he was doing and no such problem would develop. During construction of the pool, the homeowner pointed out to the Respondent that it appeared that the pool was being constructed higher than the patio which, if true, would also cause flooding problems. Again, the Respondent denied that the pool was being constructed higher than the patio and that flooding problems would occur. During construction, Respondent removed a rain downspout which, prior to construction, was located between the patio and the screen enclosure. The pool patio was then poured without replacing the downspout underneath the patio. As a result of one or more of the foregoing conditions, the homeowner's house was almost flooded on one occasion. Thereafter, the homeowner had to put a drain hole in the patio in an attempt to prevent future flooding. Since completion of the pool, when it rains, rainwater flows down the patio towards the house. Additionally, rainwater is directed from the roof through the gutter onto the patio towards the house and occasionally water overflows from the pool towards the house. While the house has not been flooded, the pool deck floods during certain rains. During construction, the Respondent removed all of the ground wires off electrical fixtures located in the homeowner's yard without replacing them after being requested to replace them by the homeowner. After the deck was poured, it was covered with kool deck. The kool deck was soft and had indentations in it. The Respondent agreed with the homeowner that the deck was bad and that the homeowner should not accept it. The Respondent the replaced the kool deck with river rock. The deck now has ripples in it. The Respondent tried to charge the homeowner an additional $1,200 for the river rock. The homeowner had the river rock installed for an additional $850.00 by a third party. Prior to entering into the contract for the pool and enclosure with Respondent, the home owner told the Respondent that he wanted the biggest water heater available to heat the pool water instantly. When the water heater was being installed, the homeowner questioned the Respondent whether or not the water heater was big enough to meet the homeowner's requirements. The Respondent said that it was. After installation, the heater did not come close to meeting the home owner's requirements. The homeowner then called the manufacturer of the heater and was told that the installed heater was too small. The Respondent, at the homeowner's request, then changed the heater to one that would supposedly heat the pool water faster. It did not. The homeowner then called the heating company again and was told that the new heater was only one size up from the original heater and still would not meet the homeowner's requirements. That heater remains on the homeowner's property and does not meet the homeowner's requirements. Mr. Kerry paid the Respondent $5,500.00 on December 7, 1987, which made a total of $19,000.00 the homeowner had paid the Respondent. The homeowner has paid more than $600.00 in repairing and/or correcting work that was the obligation of the Respondent. Correction of all these problems has been to the homeowner's financial detriment. In the latter part of December, 1987, the Respondent entered into an oral contract with All Wright Aluminum to have All Wright Aluminum install an L- shaped pool enclosure over the pool at the Kerry residence. The total contract price was $5,185.10. Payment for the construction was due within ten days of completion which occurred on January 6, 1988. All Wright Aluminum received a $1,000.00 payment from the Respondent on or about February 2, 1988. That payment was a check from a customer of the Respondent, made payable to the Respondent's order in partial payment on pool repairs which the Respondent made for that customer. The Respondent endorsed that check and made it payable to All Wright Aluminum. On February 15, 1988, All Wright Aluminum in compliance with the mechanic's lien law, filed a valid claim of lien against Mr. Kerry's property in the amount of $4,185.10 for failure of the Respondent to pay All Wright for the construction of the pool enclosure. On May 10, 1988, the Respondent paid All Wright Aluminum $1,000.00 towards that lien. On September 16, 1988, the Respondent paid All Wright $2,000.00 towards the satisfaction of that lien from his personal account. On September 16, 1988, the Respondent gave All Wright Aluminum a personal promissory note in the amount of $1,135.10 for the balance of the lien amount. On that date All Wright Aluminum satisfied its previously filed claim of lien. Respondent has previously been disciplined by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order and therein penalize the Respondent, William Losciale, as follows: Assess a fine of $750 for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(h) Assess a fine of $750 for the violation of Sections 489.129(1)(j) , 489.105(4), and 489.119. Assess a fine of $1500 for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(m) Suspend the license of Respondent for a period of six (6) months. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-3296 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-20 (1-20). COPIES FURNISHED: Jack M. Larkin Attorney at Law 806 Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 William Losciale 6491 Mobile Street Inverness, Florida 32652 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for a variance at the Sunrise Civic Center wading pool should be granted.
Findings Of Fact In conjunction with the City of Sunrise constructing its multi-purpose swimming pool at its Civic Center, Patricia Riley, an employee of the Broward County Health Department, made a site inspection on January 5, 2005. While she was conducting her inspection, she noticed that the fence between the swimming pool which was under construction and the existing wading pool had been removed and apparently was being replaced. She noticed that two columns for the new fence were large, and they encroached on the required ten-foot deck perimeter around the existing wading pool although the fence itself did not. She told Manuel Synalovski, who was present, to seek a variance for the columns, since she considered that the encroachment was a minor deviation or construction error. Synalovski applied for a variance for the deviation. The variance was approved by the Advisory Review Board for Swimming Pools and Bathing Places on March 9, 2005, and then by Respondent Department of Health on March 28, 2005. On June 16, 2005, Riley again went to inspect the swimming pool. While doing so, she noticed that there were two planters near the wading pool. Each planter was surrounded by an approximately-square concrete curb approximately six inches high. A palm tree had been planted in the center of each of the two planters. Each of the two planters extended into the required ten-foot deck perimeter around the wading pool. However, the palm trees themselves are ten feet from the pool, and the deck extends for 60-70 feet beyond the planters. On June 24, 2005, Synalovski filed another application for a variance relating to the two planters. The Broward County Health Department recommended that that variance be approved because the planters should not create a hazard for the users of the wading pool which would be operated by the City under lifeguard supervision but that the City should be fined $500 for the obstructions because it was the second request for a variance related to the wading pool. The Advisory Review Board for Swimming Pools and Bathing Places thereafter recommended denial because the failure to provide a ten-foot-wide deck around 50 percent of the wading pool might have a negative impact on the health and safety of pool patrons. The Department of Health advised the City in a letter dated July 25, 2005, that it concurred with the recommendation of the Advisory Review Board. The construction plans for the multi-purpose swimming pool reflected the existing wading pool, contained notes referring to planters, and showed boxes where the planters would be placed. Similarly, the drawing submitted with the first variance application showed the planters at the existing wading pool. Similarly, aerial photos taken before the first application for variance was filed showed the planters in place at the existing wading pool.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entering granting the variance and imposing a $500 fine to be paid by a date certain. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 7th day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel Synalovski Synalovski Gutierrez Romanik Architects, Inc. 3950 North 46th Avenue Hollywood, Florida 33021 Judith C. Elfont, Esquire Department of Health 2421-A Southwest Sixth Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315-2613 Dr. John O. Agwunobi, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Timothy M. Cerio, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department, is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Chapters 20, 455 and 489. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Mike H. Kargar, d/b/a Kargar Construction, Inc., was licensed as a Florida State Certified Building Contractor and a Florida State Certified Pool/Spa Contractor, having been issued license numbers CBC 37867 and CPC 52530 respectively. His licensure status for each license is designated as "Current, Active." The Department's records establish that at no time material hereto did Kargar Construction apply for or obtain a Certificate of Authority as a Contractor Qualified Business in the State of Florida. On or about July 14, 1999, Respondent, doing business as Premier Pools, entered into a contract with Ronald and Gina Steger (the Stegers) for construction of a residential swimming pool to be located at 466 Champagne Circle, Port Orange, Florida. The contract price was $26,469.00. Respondent was paid in full by the Stegers for the construction of the swimming pool at their residence. While Respondent verbally informed Mr. Steger about the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, the contract does not contain a written statement explaining the consumer's rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Respondent has constructed thousands of residential pools during his career. Respondent proceeded with the construction of the Stegers' pool in the same manner as with all other pools he constructed. That is, he reviewed the contract documents, visited the job site to inspect the site during the various stages of construction, and was in charge of scheduling. As is his typical practice, Respondent also had superintendents who oversaw the project and subcontractors who performed most of the actual work on the excavation and construction of the pool. Respondent visited the Stegers' job site at least twice. He went to the pool site before the pool was "shot." During that visit, he did not observe anything that raised concerns regarding the soil conditions that existed at the Steger residence. He inspected the Stegers' job site after the shell was poured and did not observe any problems. He also observed the control joints for the concrete for the pool deck. The spacing of the control joints at the Stegers' job site was the same as his company usually utilizes in constructing pool decks. Robert Fleming is the owner/operator of Fleming Excavating, which is in the business of excavating for swimming pools. He has been in the business of excavating pools for about ten years and has excavated between 5,000 and 6,000 pools. He and persons who work for him performed the excavation of the Stegers' pool. As is typical on a pool excavation job, Mr. Fleming performed what he refers to as "LDS" on the Stegers' pool. That is, layout, dig, steel, and be ready for inspection. He staked out the pool, determining its shape, then excavated the dirt. After the dirt was excavated, he and his workers put in the steel for inspection. In digging the Stegers' pool, Mr. Fleming did not encounter any unusual subsurface soil conditions to give him any indication that there would be problems for the pool in the future. About two weeks after the project was completed, Mr. Steger observed what he perceived to be a half inch rotation of the pool shell in the ground. When the pool was initially filled with water, the water level followed the grout line of the tile around the pool. After a couple of weeks, the water level against the pool tile furthest from the home was at a different level than the tile toward the area of the pool closest to the home. This was reported to Respondent. Mr. Steger then noticed a crack in the pool deck on the backside of the pool. He described the shape of the initial crack to be the same shape as the backside of the pool shell in the decking. Other cracks formed. One is evident where pieces of tile around the pool shell have come off at the place where the crack in the pool deck meets the pool shell. The cracking is all on the deck, not in the pool itself. A representative of Respondent's company went to the Stegers' home in March of 2000 and documented on a warranty form as follows: Southwest deck, [less than] 1/32 separation around the perimeter south of beam. Northwest near expansion tile needs to be regrout. Watch for further expansion northeast. Near expansion tile needs to be regrout. Watch for further expansion. Between December 1999 and March 2000, Mr. Steger made two other requests for warranty work. These conditions were corrected by Respondent and signed off as satisfactorily completed by Mr. Steger. Sometime in the year 2000, Respondent became aware of the cracking problems in the Stegers' deck. He went to the Stegers' home and met with Mr. Steger. He observed that the cracks were in a circular type of pattern following the pool shape. Respondent offered to repair the deck cracks by "v- ing" out the cracks and inserting a urethane 500 product to stop the cracks from coming through. Once that process was completed, Respondent proposed that he would then "respray and re-acrylic the affected area of the deck." Respondent has used this process numerous times to cover cracks in decks, and once it is used, the cracks do not show. Mr. Steger did not agree to Respondent's proposal to repair the cracking of the deck area as illustrated by his testimony at hearing: Mr. Kargar came out and told me that he would, in fact, grind out the concrete in the cracks themselves, fill them in with some sort of epoxy substance in order to mask the cracking. However, that does not address the original problem of the pool shell shifting and the deck moving away from the pool. So, no, I did not accept that as a solution to the problem. Richard Kushner is a civil engineer with a concentration in geotechnical engineering and construction engineering. He works for Universal Engineering Science (Universal). Mr. Steger called Universal which conducted an investigation as to why the pool deck was cracking. A field representative from Universal went to the Stegers' home and performed four manual auger borings into the soil to test the type and condition of the soil under the pool deck, ran density and compaction tests to see how tight the soils were underneath the pool deck, and observed the cracking and the cracking patterns in the concrete. Mr. Kushner did not personally go to the Stegers' as it is customary in the field of geotechnical and construction engineering to review data, do whatever analysis is necessary, and come to a conclusion using an investigative report. Regarding the cause of the pool deck cracking, Mr. Kushner had three concerns: the compaction of the soil underneath the concrete slab was less than 90 percent, whereas the industry standard is 95 percent; evidence of wood rot was found at one of the auger borings, indicating that the original soils were not well stripped and cleared of debris, such as sticks and roots; and insufficient spacing of control joints in the concrete. Mr. Kushner concluded that the contractor and subcontractors who constructed the pool deck were responsible for the cracking in the pool deck. Mr. Kushner acknowledged that two of the three concerns, i.e., the soil compaction and the evidence of organic debris, are circumstances that may cause future problems but were not the cause of the current problems with the deck cracking. Mr. Kushner also acknowledged that the pool cracking is a problem which is cosmetic or aesthetic in nature and that the cracks in the pool deck are not structural problems. Universal's investigation and Mr. Kushner's report relate exclusively to the pool deck, not to the pool shell or the subsoil conditions under the pool shell. Mr. Kushner was not aware when he wrote the report relied upon by Petitioner that there was an issue regarding whether the pool shell was shifting; was not involved in any discussions about the pool shell; and was not aware that the cracks in the pool deck follow the shape of the pool. Mr. Kushner acknowledged that any shifting of the pool shell could be caused by soil conditions underneath the pool shell and could be the cause of deck cracking that followed the shape of the pool. However, the investigation conducted by Universal and his report were exclusively related to the cracking of the pool deck and did not examine anything regarding the pool shell itself. As of July 18, 2003, the Department's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding legal costs, totaled $384.63.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order imposing a $100.00 fine to be deposited in the Construction Industries Recovery Fund for a violation of Section 489.1425, issue a notice of noncompliance pursuant to Section 489.119(6)(e), and require Respondent to pay $384.63 in costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 2003.
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
