Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Clarence Kimball, is a professional engineer licensed to practice engineering in the State of Florida, holding license number PE 0009427. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing standards and principles of professional engineering practice imposed upon licensed professional engineers in Florida and enumerated in Chapter 471, Florida Statutes (1981), and with monitoring and regulating the licensure status of professional engineers in Florida. The Respondent was retained to draft engineering design drawings for a multi-family residential project known as Westwind Villas, to be constructed in Lee County, Florida. The project consisted of two two (2) story buildings each containing four residential units. The drawings depict the first floor of the two buildings as built in place out of concrete block. The second floor of the building as depicted in the drawings, would be built of prefabricated modular units mounted on top of the concrete block, first floor construction. The purpose of these engineering drawings was to define the scope of the work to be done by the building contractor, who would do the actual construction, and to define the materials to be used by the contractor and the manner in which those materials were to be assembled. These permit drawings contain an inconsistency as to which way the buildings are to face. Sheet 1 of the drawings depicts a plot plan and drainage plan for the Westwind Villas. That sheet indicates that the units are all facing west. Sheet 2 of the drawings also shows the units facing west. Sheet 5, however, depicts the units as both facing to the north. This fact was established by Petitioner and indeed, was acknowledged by the Respondent in his testimony. Sheet 2 depicts the elevation and design of the foundation of both buildings. There are a number of areas of the foundation design where the drawing depicts an increase in the width of the concrete slab involved, but with no indication of the Respondent's intent as to what the dimensions of the widened portion of the slab were to be. The Respondent acknowledged that the failure to indicate the width of the slab as widened with regard to the drawing on Sheet 2, was a mistake on his part. Sheet 2 also contains a note that says "number 5 bars in the concrete fill are indicated by a little square." Indeed there are numerous small squares on the foundation plan indicating that number 5 reinforcing bars are erroneously sticking out of the floor of the structure. The Respondent admitted that the filled squares indicate reinforcing bars out in the floor of the structure, as opposed to the foundation, and that those are mistakes. Sheet 2 also provides no indication or direction to the building contractor as to the degree of compaction of soil required, the grade of lumber to be used, nor the grade and type of reinforcing steel to be used in the concrete portion of the construction. Sheet 4 of the permit drawings contains details and cross sections. Section AA calls for an 8" x 16" concrete tie beam and in depicting the typical cross section of that same beam, the Respondent shows it as an 8" x 12" concrete tie beam, which would have less "shear load "or weight bearing ability. Section CC of Sheet 4 illustrates a section of the wall for which the Respondent indicates that a single wall is to be constructed of interior type wall materials. Due to the offset of the two units in their alignment arrangement with each other however, there should have been two "stud walls" designed with the exterior portions of those walls constructed out of exterior materials, since, as designed in an offset pattern, portions of the walls would indeed be exterior walls. The Respondent acknowledged here again that he should have designed the two walls providing for materials suitable for exterior wall construction. As Respondent admits, Section CC also does not indicate how the contractor is to anchor prefabricated units consisting of the second floor structure, to the beams on which they are to rest. There is no indication as to what material is to be used for the attic floor of the structures. Section 5 depicts cross sections, trusses and framing details. There is inconsistency between the elevation depicted on Sheet 2 and the roof rafter plans shown on Sheet 5. The roof after plan indicates that the prefabricated second story unit is 14 feet wide without overhang on the sides. The elevation drawing, however, shows an overhang of 1' 4" on each side. There is thus an inconsistency there, and also an inconsistency between the ceiling plan above the second floor and the truss detail both of which are shown in Sheet 5. The ceiling plan indicates that the ceiling joists are to be 2" x 6". In truss detail "A" the ceiling joists are shown to be 2" x 8". Additionally, the 2" x 6" ceiling joists are overstressed in that the attic was designed to have a pull down staircase and thus is clearly intended for storage use. The standard building code in effect for this structure, requires that an attic space to be used for storage should be designed with a live load capacity of thirty pounds per square foot. The Respondent designed this attic space with a live load capacity of fifteen pounds per square foot, and thus has failed to meet building code standards. Sheet 5 contains illustrations of "Sling and Jack Points" thus showing a method for lifting the fabricated units onto the concrete block first floor structure. The owner of the building ultimately decided not to use this method for lifting the prefabricated units atop the first floor, but the Respondent failed to notify the Lee County Building Department of this decision and did not file a revised sheet showing the elimination of the use of sling and jack points for lifting in the design. The drawing with regard to placement of the second floor units on top of the first floor concrete block structure was incomplete. The Respondent referred to a temporary support beam to be used during the lifting operation and indicated the specification for that beam "as depicted by reference on another sheet of the drawings. Respondent, however, did not indicate what other sheet the contractor was to refer to. The permit drawings for this project, signed and sealed by Respondent, are to some extent an amalgamation of drawings from other previously designed projects, some of which are inconsistent when an attempt is made to combine the drawings into a single new design. There are a number of construction problems the Respondent failed to resolve with his drawings, and while many of the errors and inconsistencies standing alone would not be significant, the sum total of all the inconsistencies, ambiguities and inaccuracies in the drawings result in a final product which would, if used to construct the building, result in a poorly constructed, and possibly unsafe building, because of the substandard and ambiguous nature of the drawings at issue.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Professional Engineers suspending the license of Clarence Kimball, the Respondent herein, for a period of four years, provided however, that if, within one year from the date of such final order, the Respondent, through enrollment and successful completion of appropriate continuing engineering educational courses, can establish that his engineering skills have been remediated and rehabilitated, then the remaining three years of suspension should be abated and his licensure reinstated to its former status. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32391 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1984.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's license as a professional engineer should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the allegations set forth in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of professional engineering in Florida. During the applicable time period set forth in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent, Charles A. Wunder, Sr., was licensed as a professional engineer in Florida. He holds license number PE0016670, which has been in effect continuously since 1971. Respondent Wunder's last known address on file with the Board of Professional Engineers is 12620 Eagle Road, Cape Coral, Florida 33909. Plaza 1300 In 1981, the Respondent was commissioned by Messrs. Mike Zak and John Zipkovich to prepare plans for the construction of a commercial building to be developed in Cape Coral, Florida, known as Plaza 1300. At the time the commission took place, the owner-developers represented to Respondent that the construction company with whom he was involved would build the project, and he would supervise construction as a professional engineer. Based upon this representation, the Respondent designed and prepared plans in a way that was less time consuming than the creation of a plan to be used without his continuous supervision and direct involvement in construction. Instead of placing all of the specifications on the drawings, the Respondent chose to incorporate many of the details in the plan through the use of separate specification booklets which would be used by the fabricators and the Respondent during construction. The Respondent judged that this was a reasonable approach to the project design based upon the information he was given by the owner- developers during the design phase. The original plans for the building were completed in January of 1982. Four copies of the drawings, as completed by the Respondent for this project, were sealed with Respondent Wunder's professional seal as an engineer and were given to his clients during that same month and year. These drawings were specific enough to allow Messrs. Zak and Zipkovich to decide whether this was the building they wanted built at the project site. The Respondent did not give the owners the technical specifications that had been placed in the separate booklets because this aspect of the design was beyond what they were seeking to review at the time the project design was presented to them. After the Respondent discussed with the owner-developers what it would cost to build the project, they decided to find another builder who would construct the project for less money. The owner-developers used the sealed drawings when they went looking for a cheaper builder. They did not advise the Respondent of their decision not to retain the construction firm with whom he was affiliated, and they did not reveal they were going to use the drawings for the purpose of retaining a contractor. The owners gave the drawings to David J. Hayes, the general contractor and qualifier for Coral Bay Construction, Inc. This construction company was hired by the owners to build Plaza 1300 pursuant to the sealed drawings created by Respondent Wunder. Once the Respondent was advised that his construction company would not build the building, there must have been some discussions and agreements made with the owner-developers as to how Respondent Wunder would remain on the project for engineering purposes. It is obvious from the evidence adduced at hearing that the Respondent remained actively involved in the project in a number of ways after he completed his design and sealed the drawings. The Respondent's role and involvement in this project is confusing to others who are attempting to delineate what the Respondent's responsibilities were at different stages of the project's development. Sometimes the Respondent performed engineering functions for the owner-developers such as the approval of shop drawings. At other times, he assisted the contractor in working out code disputes with various city agencies and defended or revised his design. The Respondent also completed the structural inspection for the city on this building, and made any necessary design changes the city deemed were necessary to allow the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. By some means, all of the parties managed to delineate responsibilities throughout the project without any conflicts as to who was ultimately responsible for what in any given stage of development. The Respondent was only called upon when he was needed, and he assisted any of the parties when he was asked to do so. The signed and sealed drawings received by the contractor were submitted by him to the building department as the complete set of plans and specifications. Building department personnel relied on the drawings as the complete building plans. However, other city personnel who had questions concerning the specifications contacted the designer, Respondent Wunder. Any questions were resolved to the satisfaction of the city personnel prior to permit approval. For example, when the Fire Marshall had questions concerning whether construction would comply with the Standard Fire Prevention Code, National Fire Codes (NFPA) and the Life Safety Code 101, he discussed the matter with the Respondent. The Fire Marshall was given the Respondent's specification booklet that contained more information on the building materials than what was contained on the plans. Based upon the review of these specifications in addition to the drawings, the project was approved for permit by the Fire Marshall as long as the special conditions listed by him on a separate sheet were met. A permit was issued to construct the building according to the drawings and the additional specifications reviewed by city personnel on May 5, 1982. The contractor was never advised during his ongoing interactions with Respondent Wunder, the owner-developers or city personnel that separate sets of specifications existed which were part of the designer's plans for the project. The contractor relied on the construction drawings, the Respondent's approval of shop drawings prepared by manufacturer's before the structural items were fabricated for placement in the building, the outcome of his own discussions with city personnel about the application and interpretation of various codes as well as Respondent's discussions, and Respondent's structural inspections of the project. Based upon the knowledge and materials obtained by this contractor throughout the project, he was able to construct the building and obtain a certificate of occupancy for the owner-developers. The separate sets of specifications were not provided by the Respondent or the city through its records at hearing because these items were lost, destroyed or stolen from the city and the Respondent years prior to the filing of the charges by the Department. The deficiency in the records was not the fault of the city or the Respondent. Wherever deficiencies alleged by the Department as to design could be resolved in separate specifications, it has been determined that the Respondent did in fact supply this information in additional specification booklets as part of the plan for Plaza 1300. On Sheet S1 of the signed and sealed drawings, the Footing Schedule fails to call for anchor bolts at the base of steel columns in Footings (1,2,4) CB and 7 B-C. Ordinarily, this omission is contrary to the exercise of due care and fails to exhibit due regard for the principles of professional engineering because anchor bolts are required for the columns to function. It is careless to assume a contractor will use the right number and size anchor bolts. In this case, however, the Respondent created a separate specification, approved the shop drawings before the columns and the anchor bolts were delivered for use by the contractor, and inspected the installation of these materials. Any omission of the anchor bolts from the Footing Schedule in the drawings was resolved well before installation of the columns. The Footing Schedule on Sheet S1 calls for dowels at 10 feet on centers in footings supporting masonry walls, but this is inconsistent with the dowel requirements indicated on Sheet S2. This sheet shows the dowels are placed at varying spaces, e.g., some are spaced 46 feet apart, some are 6 feet, 8 feet, 10 feet and 40 feet on centers. Drawings should be consistent as to the information they convey to the contractor. This error could not have been corrected in a separate set of specifications. It resulted in a handwritten entry on the drawings prior to approval by the building department that gave a third alternative as to how the dowels should be placed. The lack of clarity as to dowel placement and the creation of three possible installations was a failure by a professional engineer to use due care in design while performing in an engineering capacity. As this disciplinary proceeding relates only to the design portion of this project, it is unknown if Respondent Wunder was actively involved in the revision accepted by the building department or whether he approved later shop drawings based upon the handwritten entry on the drawings submitted to the building department for approval. The Recommended Bar Details on Sheet S1 of the drawings are ambiguous as they do not specify what portion of the required bottom bars may be stopped short of the supports. The details indicate that some bottom bars are cut off and do not extend into supports, but the number is not specified. An engineer's design must explain which bottom bars extend the full length of the span because the designer is the only one who knows this and he must tell the detailer what he wants. The details cannot be allocated to a fabricator for subsequent approval by the engineer because the bars not needed for moment must be developed in bond beyond the cut off point, according to code requirements. A fabricator would not have the expertise to read the moment diagram and design what the professional engineer's calculations require without specific instructions regarding the bottom bars. Separate specifications would not cure the problem with the ambiguities in the bottom bars because the ambiguities are in the pictures themselves. If the ambiguities could not be clarified in the pictures, they could not logically be clarified with the written word. On Sheet S1, the requirements for top steel reinforcing bars in continuous concrete beams are ambiguous in that the required number and extent of those bars over supports between adjacent beams has not been defined in the drawings. The top bars are detailed in each separate beam with no regard as to how many bars are required between adjacent beams. For example, beams B-1, B-2 and B-3 are adjacent to each other on the second floor, the third floor and the roof. The top reinforcing for beam B-2 does not agree with that of beams B-1 and B-3. If the engineer had a particular area of steel required for this condition, then he has confused the contractor with this detail in the drawings. In this example, the amount of reinforcing varies on the roof beams by 33 percent. The amount of reinforcement should be the same for each bar. The reason this ambiguity could not be resolved in specifications or shop drawings is that the ambiguity is inherent in the design, as represented in its pictorial form. The alleged ambiguities as to Sheet S2 regarding anchor bolts and base plates were resolved in Respondent's favor in a separate specification booklet, and the shop drawings reviewed and accepted by Respondent. His details regarding the stairs were contained in the architectural portion of the drawings in the plans as opposed to the structural drawings. Based upon his design, and his review and approval of the shop drawings presented at hearing, the alleged ambiguities did not exist. The CORRUFORM deck indicated on architectural Sheet A6 is structurally inadequate to safely support code specified loads at the indicated joist spacing. The manufacturer's recommendation, based on an allowable stress of 30,000 PSI on the span of 5 feet is 34 PSF, is a little over one half of the actual load on the deck. The actual load is almost twice what the manufacturer recommends. A separate set of specifications could not correct this deficiency because the properties specified indicate the deck is structurally inadequate to support the required loads set forth on Sheet S1 of the drawings. In Sheet S5 of the drawings, all steel joists specified, except for those marked 8H3, are structurally inadequate to safely support code specified loads, according to the engineering calculations presented at hearing. This deficiency is repeated in the shop drawings. This structural inadequacy fails to exhibit due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles. The 12 WF27 steel beams shown on Sheet S5 lack the moment resisting capacity needed to safely support code specified loads on the roof. The moment resistance required for the roof beam is 81.89 foot kips. The allowable moment capacity for these beams is 68.4 foot kips. This is an inadequate carrying capacity which could not be cured with additional specifications because it is a design error. The roof was redesigned by the Respondent prior to the roof construction. The beam details provided in Sheet S6 are ambiguous in that they fail to define the number and extent of top reinforcing bars required over intermediate supports in continuous concrete members. It appears from the beam schedule that although B-1 joins to B-2 and B-2 joins to B-3, each beam calls for a different number and size of reinforced bars at the connections. This causes confusion as to whether there should be 3, 4 or 7 reinforcing bars intersecting with each other where the beams are supposed to join. Shop drawings and separate specifications would not cure this deficiency as the ambiguity is in the details of the design. In addition to the structural design deficiencies alleged by the Department, Count I of the Third Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that various provisions of the applicable building codes in effect in the City of Cape Coral at the time the plans were sealed were violated in the design created by the Respondent. The Cape Coral Enforcement Board has already determined that there were two rated separate stairways provided to exit the second and third floors of this building, and that the designed stairways met the applicable provisions of the Standard Building Code, as interpreted, applied, and enforced within the City of Cape Coral. The Board also determined that the travel distance to exits and the corridors met the fire, building, zoning, and related technical codes, as they were interpreted and enforced in this municipality. The fire ratings for the elevator glass were in a separate specification book that Respondent Wunder submitted to the Fire Marshall prior to the Fire Marshall's determination that the sealed plans would be approved if the special conditions listed by the Fire Marshall on the drawings were met. These special conditions are missing and cannot be located. It is unknown if these special conditions related to the elevator glass or if the missing specifications were sufficient. The Respondent is found to have complied with the city's code requirements as to the elevator glass in the missing specification. The Cape Coral Enforcement Board found the doors and walls of the exit pathway to be fire rated and in compliance with all fire, building, and related technical codes as interpreted and in force within this municipality. The building materials used were in a separate specification booklet and were used to purchase the materials prior to installation by the contractor. The stairs designed by Respondent Wunder for this building decrease in width in the direction of exit travel. Both the Standard Building Code and the Life Safety Code in effect at the time of the design prohibit a decrease in the width of stairs in the direction of exit travel. The stair landings were found to be in compliance by the Cape Coral Enforcement Board as the applicable codes were interpreted and enforced within the municipality. Winding stairs, although prohibited as an exit stairway by the Standard Building Code, were designed by Respondent Wunder for use as an exit stairway in this commercial building. The riser and tread design completed by Respondent Wunder did not comply with the Life Safety code adopted by the City of Cape Coral. The design error may have been one of the special conditions placed upon the design by the Fire Marshall prior to his approval of the plans for permit. Uniform risers were placed in the building when it was constructed. In the Third Amended Administrative Complaint, the Department alleged that wood trim in exit stairways is prohibited. The Respondent stated in his answer that he was without knowledge of this prohibition. Because the Standard Building Code does allow wood trim if that wood trim meets certain flame spread characteristics and complies with the interior finish requirements, this allegation in the charging document did not sufficiently alert the Respondent as to what he was required to defend against concerning the wood trim. In addition, the Respondent is found to have satisfied code requirements for any wood trim in a separate specification booklet. A manual fire alarm system was not provided by Respondent Wunder as part of his original design. A manual alarm system was made part of the revised drawings on October 31, 1982, which was well after the permit was issued by the municipality. It is unknown if the omission of the manual fire alarm system in the design drawings was an omission, a matter of code interpretation, or whether the system was originally in the separate specification booklet reviewed by the Fire Marshall prior to his approval of the construction plans. This alleged deficiency is resolved in the Respondent's favor upon the determination that the system was in the separate specifications taken from the fire department. The Department's allegations regarding a standpipe system were removed from consideration prior to the taking of evidence in the formal hearing. The Cape Coral Enforcement Board determined that the vertical openings in the floor and roof of this building and the structural system are adequately fire protected under the city's interpretation of fire, building, and other technical codes in force in the city. The handicap accessibility requirements were not met in the drawings completed by Respondent Wunder. During the design phase of the project, the Accessibility by Handicapped Persons Act was in effect in Florida. Even if the restrooms and water fountains in the facility meet the minimum requirements set forth in Section 553.48(2)(h), Florida Statutes, as a result of the separate specifications, the parking space configurations and building access do not meet all of the applicable minimum code requirements. Schooner Cove In 1984, Respondent Wunder had an ongoing business relationship with the architectural firm of Stout & Gerald in Cape Coral, Florida. The architectural firm would hire Respondent Wunder to review the site drainage on the firm's project designs for buildings located on land within the City of Cape Coral. The following procedure was used by the architectural firm when it retained the Respondent in a couple of hundred projects: One of the architects would telephone the Respondent and ask him for a price on a particular number of units and would advise Respondent of the number of lots involved. The Respondent would be told whether the lots were inland or on a canal. Upon receiving this information, the Respondent would give the firm a price quote. When the project progressed to the point where a drainage review was needed, the drawings would be sent to the Respondent. He would either review, review and do some work on them, or say the drainage was all right. The architects would rely upon this review and go forward with finishing the design from that stage to its completion. When the customer needed signed sealed drawings for a building permit, the architect assigned to a particular project would place his seal on the project for the other work. The Respondent would place his seal on the plans as to the site drainage. On October 22, 1984, Respondent Wunder signed and sealed the site plan for a twelve unit condominium project known as Schooner Cove in Cape Coral, Florida. His title block on the site plan indicated "DRAINAGE ONLY" beneath the name "C.A. Wunder Engineering, Inc." The Respondent did not require a survey or a soil test of the site prior to his drainage review of the site plans because of his working professional knowledge of the soil conditions and the undeveloped lots within the City of Cape Coral at the time the site plans were given to him for review. This judgment call was reasonable based upon the architect's site plan and his failure to call anything unusual to Respondent's attention in the preliminary drainage design prepared by the architect. The Respondent did view the site before sealing the drainage design. A drainage design is comprised of calculations, grading and retention. The drainage design for Schooner Cove relied upon the percolation method to dispose of excess water from ten year critical storm events because there is no overflow/outfall capability from the retention areas that collected the excess water. Calculations are part of a drainage design. They should be performed with relation to a site and the drainage layout shown on the site plans. In determining the appropriate calculations, the engineer who places his seal on a site plan as to drainage must establish grades, overflow and how the drainage will be handled on the project. Both pre-construction and post-development conditions at the site must be reviewed. The drainage design at the Schooner Cove project that received the Respondent's engineering seal was not adequate to provide for reasonably anticipated storm water runoff at the site, post-construction, in a ten year critical storm event. The flooding of the retention ponds in such a storm event should have been apparent to a professional engineer who reviewed the plans with due care and due regard for the principles of professional engineering. Mitigating Circumstances The Department did not present any evidence of a previous disciplinary history in this or any other jurisdiction wherein the Respondent has practiced engineering. Many of the deficiencies alleged in the drawings for Plaza 1300 which were created in 1982, have since been reformed by the Respondent within his engineering firm. He no longer prepares separate specification booklets for projects of this size, and he prepares more detailed drawings that do not rely upon his personal supervision and direction after the design phase of the project. These steps were taken by Respondent even before the violations were charged against him in these proceedings. The way in which the drawings were prepared in Plaza 1300 was an unusual practice for Respondent, and was done in reliance upon the owner- developers' representation that Respondent would be responsible for the supervision of the construction of the building as a professional engineer. Some of the deficiencies in the Plaza 1300 project proved by the Department were minor, and were corrected as the project was built. The drainage design deficiencies in the Schooner Cove project can be corrected with a redesign of the drainage system at the site. Aggravating Circumstances Some of the structural design deficiencies in the Plaza 1300 project drawings reveal that the building's deck, columns and beams may not safely support code specified loads if they were built according to the design in the drawings. The owners of the condominiums in the Schooner Cove project must have the drainage redesigned to alleviate the flooding problems at the site. The fact that the complaint alleges multiple counts of the same provision of Chapter 471 cannot be used for enhancement in this case because that provision of the rules regarding disciplinary guidelines was not in effect when either of the violations occurred. The Department did not prove that enhancement of penalties based upon multiple violations was a policy of the Board of Professional Engineers during the time the violations occurred.
Recommendation In determining what penalty should be recommended for Respondent Wunder, the Hearing Officer considered the severity of the offenses, as well as the degree of harm to the consumers and the public. Based upon the foregoing, including all of the information made available to the Hearing Officer regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances, it is recommended: The Respondent Wunder be found guilty of having violated Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I , Paragraph Nine of the Third Amended Administrative Complaint. The Respondent Wunder be found guilty of having violated Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II, Paragraph 15 of the Third Amended Administrative Complaint. Respondent be fined $1,000.00 for each violation for a total of $2,000.00, and receive a letter of reprimand from the Board. The Respondent's license should also be placed on probationary status for a period of three years. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of May, 1991. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5149 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected, plans completed in 1981. Contrary to date on the drawings. See HO #4. Rejected, these were complete drawings. See HO #3. The rest of paragraph 4 is accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #6 and #9. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #24. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #3, #4, #7 and #8. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See Chapter 166, Florida Statutes, Section 6, Art. VIII, Florida Constitution. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #9. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative Accepted. Accepted. See HO #14 and #15. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #3. Rejected. Overbroad. Addressed individually in findings. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #13. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. See HO #18. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #19. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12 and #20. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12 and #20. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #20. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #20. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #3. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #3. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Reject first two sentences. Relates to construction. The rest is accepted. See HO #21. Accepted. See HO #12. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #23. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Not an allegation in the complaint. Rejected. Not an allegation in the complaint. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #3, #7 and #10. Accepted. Rejected. Conclusionary. See HO #3. Rejected. Irrelevant to charges. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11. Rejected. Contrary to facts of this case. See HO #3, #7 and #10. Rejected. Contrary to this particular situation when drawing sealed. See HO #3. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO #21. Accepted. See HO #21. Accepted. See HO #21. Accepted. See HO #22. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #22. Accepted. See HO #23. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #23. Accepted. See HO #23. Accepted. See HO #25. Accepted. See HO #25. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #3. Accepted. 121. Accepted. See HO #25. 122. Rejected. Contrary to fact. 123. Accepted. See HO #15, #17, #18, #21, #22, #23 and #25. 124. Accepted. See response to paragraph 123. 125. Accepted. See response to paragraph 123. 126. Accepted. 127. Accepted. 128. Accepted. See HO #10. 129. Accepted. 130. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 131. Accepted. 132. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 133. Accepted. 134. Accepted. 135. Accepted. 136. Accepted. 137. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 138. Accepted. 139. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 140. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 141. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 142. Accepted. 143. Accepted. 144. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 145. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #27. 146. Accepted. 147. Accepted. 148. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. 149. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. 150. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. 151. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. 152. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. 152(a). Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #28. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #28. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #28. 154(b). Accepted. 155. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. 156. Accepted. See HO #30. 157. Accepted. See HO #30. 158. Accepted. 159. Accepted. 160. Accepted. 161. Accepted. See HO #30. 162. Accepted. 163. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #31. 164. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #31. 165. Accepted. 166. Accepted. See HO #32. 167. Accepted. 168. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #31. 169. Accepted. 170. Accepted. 171. Accepted, but See HO #33. 172. Accepted. 173. Accepted. 174. Accepted. See HO #33. 175. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but see HO #34. Accepted. See HO #35. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #35. Accepted. Rejected. Not proved by clear and convincing evidence. See HO #36. Rejected. Not established fact. See HO #36. 184. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 185. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 186. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 187. Accepted. 188. Rejected. Irrelevant. 189. Rejected. Speculative. 190. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 191. Accepted. 192. Accepted. 193. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 194. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 195. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 196. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 197. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 198. Accepted. 199. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 200. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 201. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #3. 202. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. Rejected. Not alleged in complaint. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. Rejected. Not alleged in complaint. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #29. 208. Rejected. See HO #3 and #12. 209. Rejected. See HO #3 and #12. 210. Accepted. 211. Accepted. 212. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 213. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #38. 214. Accepted. See HO #39. 215. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #10. 216. Accepted. 217. Accepted. See HO #9. 218. Accepted. See HO #9. 219. Accepted. 220. Accepted. 221. Rejected. Irrelevant. 222. Rejected. Irrelevant. 223. Rejected. Irrelevant. 224. Accepted. See HO #11 and #12. 225. Accepted. 226. Accepted. 227. Accepted. See HO #41. 228. Accepted. See HO #41. 229. Accepted. See HO #40. 230. Accepted. 231. Accepted. See HO #40. 232. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #41. Accepted. See HO #41. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #43. Accepted to critical storm 10-year event standard. Rejected beyond 10-year critical year standard. Accepted. See HO #42. Accepted. See HO #44. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #45. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #45. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #45. Accepted. See HO #45. Accepted. See HO #45. Accepted. See HO #45. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #42. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #43. Accepted. See HO #43. Accepted. See HO #44 and #45. Accepted. See HO #45. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #42. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #8 and #9. Accepted. See HO #9. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Rejected. Argument as opposed to factual determination. Attorney comments are not evidence. Rejected. Improper summary. Rejected. Improper summary. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #14 and #15. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11. Attorney comments not evidence, therefore, that portion is rejected. Rejected. Improper summary. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Attorney comments, not evidence. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, in part. See HO #27 - #39. Those parts rejected are contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO #27 - #39. Accepted. See HO #27. Accepted. See HO #35. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #28. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Unknown, but resolved in Respondent's favor. See HO #36. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #13. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #15. Accepted, as his testimony only. Rejected as finding of fact. Improper summary. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted, but not as to Respondent Wunder's design. Accepted. See HO #27 - #39. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See HO #11 and #12. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Attorney's comments, not evidence. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #43 - #45. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #40. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #40 and #43 - #45. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #43 - #45. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #45. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. 117. Rejected. Speculative. Improper summary. 118. Rejected. Irrelevant. 119. Rejected. Irrelevant. 120. Accepted. 221. Accepted. 222. Rejected. Irrelevant. 223. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #45. 224. Accepted. 225. Accepted. 226. Accepted. 227. Accepted. 228. Accepted. 229. Accepted. Rejected. Weight and sufficiency determination. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #40. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Wings S. Benton, Esquire Post Office Box 5676 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-5676 Diane E. McGill, Esquire TURK & SHIPP, P.A. 4223 Del Prado Boulevard Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Carrie Flynn, Acting Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, August T. Nocella, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board (Board), is the agency within Pinellas County, Florida, authorized under Chapter 89-504, Laws of Florida, as amended, to regulate and discipline the licenses of, among others, certified aluminum contractors. Respondent, August T. Nocella (Respondent), is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified aluminum contractor in Pinellas County, Florida, having been issued license C-3197. At times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was doing business as Allied Aluminum, located in St. Petersburg, Florida. In 1997, Ms. Mary J. Pugh had a small screened porch added to her house located at 12855 Gorda Circle West. Approximately two years later, in July 1999, the porch was damaged or destroyed by a storm. Thereafter, Ms. Pugh requested and received a proposal from Allied Aluminum to repair or rebuild the screened porch. On September 1, 1999, Respondent entered into a contract with Ms. Pugh to repair or reconstruct the previously existing screened porch. The contract provided that Respondent would install a new aluminum roof to replace the damaged existing screened porch roof, install gutters and trim, replace 13 feet of valance, replace the screen, and install a new wall front. The contract noted that a riser wall was required for "proper roof pitch." The contract price was $2,300.00, with $1,000.00 to be paid as a down payment and the remaining $1,300.00 to be paid upon completion of the project. Ms. Pugh paid Allied Aluminum in accordance with the terms of the contract. She made the first payment of $1,000.00 on September 1, 1999, and made the final payment of $1,300.00 on September 22, 1999, upon Respondent's completing the job. On or about September 16, 1999, Respondent obtained a permit for the repair or reconstruction of the screened porch at Ms. Pugh's house. Respondent began the project on or about September 15, 1999, and completed the job on September 22, 1999. Section 105.6 of the Standard Building Code, 1997 Edition, as amended,(Standard Building Code) requires local building officials, "upon notification from the permit holder or his agent," to make a final inspection of a building after the building is completed and ready for occupancy. In order to comply with the Standard Building Code, it was the responsibility of the permit holder, in this case, Respondent, to call local officials for a final building inspection. Upon completion of the inspection, a building official would then notify the permit holder of "any violations which must be corrected in order to comply with the technical codes." Respondent failed to notify building officials that the Pugh project was completed and ready for occupancy and, thus, ready for final inspection by appropriate building officials. As a result of Respondent's failure to call for a final inspection, building officials never inspected Respondent's work on Ms. Pugh's screened porch and made no determination as to whether the project complied with the applicable technical codes. In July 2000, during a storm, the roof of Ms. Pugh's screen porch collapsed. Relying on statements of unnamed contractors, Ms. Pugh believes that the roof collapsed because it did not have the proper pitch. Respondent attributes the collapse of the roof to the gutters being blocked with leaves. Despite these assertions no evidence was presented at hearing to establish the cause of the roof's collapsing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a final order: (1) finding that Respondent failed to obtain a satisfactory inspection as alleged in Count One, and is guilty of the offenses described in Chapter 89-504, Subsections 24, (2)(d), (j), and (n), Laws of Florida; (2) imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for the foregoing offenses; and (3) dismissing Count Two of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 28th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Don Crowell, Esquire Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 310 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Rodney S. Fischer, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road Suite 102 Largo, Florida 33773-5116 August T. Nocella 1017 Robinson Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Arthur Signore committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaints and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Arthur Signore (Respondent) was licensed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Petitioner) as a certified general contractor. He received his license in 1969, qualifying Deluccia Construction. Respondent was issued license number CG CA01004. Subsequently, in 1976, Respondent qualified Construction By Scott (CBS). He was issued license number CG CB01004. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been the qualifier of CBS, and the sole owner and president of CBS. At all times material hereto, Respondent's belief was that Petitioner permitted a general contractor to use his/her license to obtain building permits for construction projects for which the general contractor had no contracts through the business that he/she qualified. Respondent practiced his belief frequently by applying for and obtaining building permits for construction projects for which companies or individuals other than CBS had contracts. Collins Job (Case No. 97-1436) Sometime after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, Respondent made an oral agreement with Harold Bader to go into partnership with Bader and form a construction company, with Respondent qualifying the company. Respondent provided his name, his company's name (CBS), and his license number to Bader in order for the qualifying documents to be completed and submitted to the Petitioner. However, the company was not formed and the qualifying documents were never submitted. At no time material hereto was Bader licensed by the Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent knew or should have known that Bader was not licensed by the Petitioner. In March 1994, Thomas Sherry of American Building Industries, Inc. (ABI), began negotiating with Maria and Wayne Collins, husband and wife, for the remodeling of their home, located at 7417 SW 140th Court, Miami, Florida. On March 24, 1994, the Collins entered into a contract with ABI for the remodeling of their home at a cost of $12,500. Bader was the owner of ABI. Sherry was a salesperson for Bader. Sherry provided the Collins with a business card which showed, among other things, ABI's name, address and telephone number, and license number. The license number on the business card was Respondent's license number. All business cards were provided to Sherry by Bader. At no time material hereto, did Sherry talk with or meet Respondent. The records of the Metropolitan Dade County, Building and Zoning Department reflect, among other things, Respondent's name, his company's name (CBS) and license number on the building permit application for the construction to the Collins' home. However, the address listed for Respondent and his company was the address for ABI. Further, the said records reflect, among other things, that aforementioned information provided, as to Respondent, was used to obtain the building permit. Respondent did not complete the permit application for the building permit to remodel the Collins' home. The Collins paid $6,875 to ABI. Any and all checks were made payable to ABI. No money for the construction on the Collins' home was paid to or received by Respondent. In May 1994, problems developed on the job site between the Collins and ABI. The work performed by ABI failed numerous inspections. Mr. Collins wanted to talk with Respondent who was listed as the contractor on the permit and requested Bader to contact Respondent. Bader refused, indicating to Mr. Collins that all communication should be with him (Bader). Finally, in August 1994 the Collins fired ABI after more problems had developed. At that time ABI had completed some of the work. On August 29, 1994, Mr. Collins met with Respondent at Respondent's place of business. Prior to the meeting, Mr. Collins had called Respondent numerous times regarding his problems with ABI and Bader and requesting assistance from Respondent. Each time Respondent denied having any knowledge of the work being performed. When Mr. Collins met with Respondent, Mr. Collins discussed the problems that he had experienced with ABI and Bader. Respondent continued to deny knowing anything about the construction project but agreed to send his employees to examine the job and determine what could be done, if anything. The following day two of Respondent's workers came to the Collins' home and examined the work completed and the work remaining. Subsequently, Respondent contacted Mr. Collins. Respondent indicated to Mr. Collins that he could complete the job for $5,000. Mr. Collins refused to pay the additional monies since it would extend the remodeling cost beyond the contracted cost and since he was now directly paying the subcontractors. At no time did Respondent or his business (CBS) have a contract with the Collins. Until being contacted by the Collins, Respondent had no knowledge that Bader used his name, business name and license number to contract with the Collins and to obtain the building permit for the remodeling of their home. However, prior to being contacted by the Collins, Respondent had been contacted by other persons who had contracts with ABI, who had been informed by Bader that Respondent was the contractor for their jobs, who had problems with ABI, and who wanted assistance from Respondent. Furthermore, the building permits for the construction jobs of those persons reflected Respondent and Respondent's company as the contractor. At no time material hereto was Bader or ABI licensed by the Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent knew or should have known that neither Bader nor ABI was licensed by the Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent was placed on notice of their unlicensed activity after the contacts by the homeowners prior to the contact by the Collins. Even with the knowledge of the homeowners' complaints prior to the Collins' complaints, at no time did Respondent notify Bader to stop using his (Respondent's) name, company's name and license number. Further, at no time did Respondent notify the Metropolitan Dade County, Building and Zoning Department of Bader's misuse of his (Respondent's) name, company's name, and license number or to no longer issue permits to ABI under his (Respondent's) name, company and license. Walsh Job (Case No. 97-1435) In the Fall of 1995, Patrick and Susan Walsh entered into an oral agreement with John Petracelli for an addition to and the remodeling of their home, located at 761 Glen Ridge Road, Key Biscayne, Florida. On October 16, 1995, the Walshes entered into a verbal agreement with Petracelli for an engineer to produce a set of plans at a cost of $2,250 for the construction to their home. The Walshes paid Petracelli the $2,250 on October 16, 1995. On December 7, 1995, the Walshes entered into a written agreement with Petracelli for the construction work on their home at a cost of $84,000. Pursuant to this written agreement, the Walshes paid Petracelli $16,800 on December 7, 1995. Petracelli contacted Respondent and requested Respondent to be the contractor for the construction work on the Walshes' home. Respondent and Petracelli had met one another previously when Petracelli was a salesperson for Bader. Petracelli informed Respondent that he (Petracelli) had already told the Walshes that Respondent was the contractor. To the contrary, Petracelli had not informed the Walshes that Respondent was involved in the construction to their home. Respondent agreed to be the contractor but informed Petracelli that, until a set of plans was approved by the Village of Key Biscayne Building Division (Building Division), he could not provide Petracelli with a cost figure for the construction work. Petracelli informed Respondent that the plans were being prepared, but did not inform Respondent that the Walshes had paid for the preparation of the plans. Respondent agreed further to submit the completed plans to the Building Division for a "dry run" only. After the dry run, Respondent would provide a cost figure for the construction work. A dry run is a process in which a contractor, who has a complicated job which requires an engineer, submits a set of plans, together with an application for a building permit, to the Building Division for approval. The plans may be subject to several modifications requested by the Building Division before they are approved. As a result, the contractor does not know the estimated cost of a job until the plans have gone through the requested modifications, if any, and approved by the Building Division. After the plans are approved by the Building Division, the contractor is notified to come to the Building Division and sign for and obtain the building permit. Pursuant to the agreement between Respondent and Petracelli, on or about December 11, 1995, Respondent completed an application for a building permit for the addition to and the remodeling of the Walshes' home and gave it to Petracelli. The application reflected, among other things, CBS (Respondent's company) as the contractor, and Respondent as the qualifier. Respondent provided the application to Petracelli for the dry run process only. Further, Respondent reiterated to Petracelli that, once the plans were approved by the Building Division, he (Respondent) would meet with the Walshes and agree on a cost for the construction work on their home and that, after agreeing on the cost he (Respondent) would sign for and obtain the building permit for the construction to begin. Respondent was not aware that Petracelli and the Walshes had a signed agreement for the construction work. Petracelli submitted the plans, along with the permit application, to the Building Division for approval. The plans were modified several times to meet the approval of the Building Division, but were never approved. The Building Division considered the plans submitted to be substandard. Since no plans were approved, no building permit was issued. On or about January 3, 1996, the Walshes met at the Building Division with some of the Building Division's officials, Petracelli, and the engineer who prepared the plans. As a result of the meeting, among other things, the Walshes were able to review the permit application and discovered that Respondent, not Petracelli, was licensed and the contractor for the construction work; concluded that the engineer's work was considered so substandard by the Building Division that any modification produced by the engineer would not be approved by the Building Division; and determined that they no longer wanted Petracelli to perform the construction work on their home. Within 24 hours of the meeting, the Walshes telephoned Petracelli and terminated his services. Also, the Walshes requested the return of all of the monies paid to Petracelli by them; however, Petracelli did not return any of their money. At no time material hereto was Petracelli licensed by the Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent knew or should have known that Petracelli was not licensed by the Petitioner. At no time material hereto did Respondent or his company (CBS) have a contract with the Walshes. At no time material hereto did Respondent have any communication or contact with the Walshes. Biscayne Kennel Club Job (Case No. 97-2998) The Biscayne Kennel Club (BKC), located at 320 NW 115th Street, Miami Shores, Florida, was a track for greyhound racing. On October 30, 1995, the last race was run at BKC. In February 1996, the BKC sold its Pari-Mutuel license. On or about December 11, 1996, the BKC, by and through its representative, Carl Spitzer, entered into a written contract with Cuyahoga Wrecking Corporation (CWC), by and through its representative, Thomas Schwab, for, among other things, the removal of asbestos and the demolition and removal of BKC's grandstand structure and viewing area. The contract was prepared by Schwab, who had 25 years of experience in the demolition business, with 20 years of that experience in the State of Florida. All contract negotiations were between Schwab and Spitzer. At no time was the President and CEO of BKC, Kay Spitzer, involved in the contract negotiations. As to cost, the contract provided at Article 4 that the cost was $37,500 and that the $37,500 was "dedicated to the removal of the described ACM." Further, Article 4 provided that the "balance of the work to be paid for by the sale of the ferrous and non-ferrous metals by the contractor." In addition, the contract provided in Article 7 that, among other things, all permits were included in the contract price and that BKC and the "contractor" would share "equally all the proceeds of the non-ferrous metals minus whatever costs are incurred bringing it to market." The contract did not restrict or prohibit CWC from engaging the services of any individual or subcontractor to perform the work required in the contract. The grandstand structure and viewing area were one structure. Attached to the roof of the structure was a small building which was used by BKC personnel for viewing the races. The roof was the highest part of the structure, except for the small building. The distance from ground level to the top of the roof was 69 feet and 10 inches; and the top of the small building was approximately 15 feet higher than the top of the roof. CWC contracted with Sal's Abatement to perform the asbestos removal. Schwab was licensed by Dade County, Florida, as a specialty contractor. He was notified that the work for the BKC job was outside the scope of his license and that a contractor, licensed by the Petitioner, was required for the BKC job. Schwab contacted Respondent to be the general contractor. Schwab had worked with Respondent before on other, but smaller, jobs. Respondent agreed to be the general contractor in return for a percentage of the contract. Per the agreement, Respondent would obtain the necessary permits, provide the equipment necessary for the demolition, and supervise the workers on the job. On March 6, 1997, Respondent completed an application for a building permit with Miami Shores Village, Florida, for the demolition of the BKC grandstand. The application reflected Respondent's company (CBS) as the contracting company and Respondent as the qualifier. Carl Spitzer signed the permit application on behalf of BKC. On March 17, 1997, a building permit (permit number 41084) was issued by the Village of Miami Shores for the demolition of BKC's grandstand. On April 29, 1997, the cost of the permit, $566.50, was paid. At no time material hereto was Schwab or CWC licensed by Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent knew or should have known that neither Schwab nor CWC were licensed by Petitioner. At no time did a contract exist between Respondent or his company with BKC for the demolition job. Respondent supervised CWC's preparation of the grandstand for demolition. In preparing the grandstand for demolition, Respondent and Schwab met at the site at least 3 times to discuss the demolition and its progress. On May 16, 1997, the grandstand was scheduled to be demolished. On the morning of May 16th, as Schwab was leaving BKC, Respondent arrived. Shortly thereafter, the grandstand accidentally collapsed--the beams supporting the roof of the grandstand failed, and the roof collapsed. Two of CWC's workers were killed and three were seriously injured. After the collapse, BKC contracted with another company, Omega Contracting, to complete the demolition job. The Petitioner submitted documents reflecting that its costs of investigation and prosecution of the complaints against Respondent, excluding costs associated with attorney's time, to be $1,017.25. On May 22, 1997, pursuant to an Emergency Suspension Order, on May 22, 1997, the Petitioner suspended Respondent's license. Respondent has no prior disciplinary action taken against him by the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order: Dismissing all counts in Case Nos. 97-1435 and 97-1436. Finding that Arthur Signore violated Subsections 489.129(1)(c), (e), and (j), 489.1265(3), and 455.227(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995). Revoking Arthur Signore's certified general contractor's license. Requiring Arthur Signore to pay all reasonable costs of investigation and prosecution associated with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation's investigation and prosecution of the charges set forth in the Administrative Complaint of Case No. 97-2998.3 DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1998.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license as a registered building contractor should be disciplined for the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, as amended?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Robert Tucker, is a registered building contractor holding State of Florida license number RB 0033063 (Ex. 7). Respondent was licensed as a building contractor by the State of Florida in September 1978, and has remained licensed at all times material hereto (Ex. 7). Since September 20, 1978, Respondent has held a local Building Contractor's License issued by the Leon County Contractor Licensing and Examination Board (Ex. 7). Respondent's license with the Department has been delinquent since July 1, 1985 (Ex. 7). In July 1983, Respondent made an oral agreement with Violet Gladieux to erect a carport for her at a cost of $1,350 (Ex. 3). Ms. Gladieux's residence is located at 2321 Belle Vue Way, within the city limits of Tallahassee. Jay Gladieux, Jr. became acquainted with Mr. Tucker from his position as an employee of Mr. Tucker on a prior construction project. Mr. Gladieux introduced his mother, Ms. Gladieux, to Mr. Tucker for the carport construction. It was orally agreed that Ms. Gladieux would pay Mr. Tucker for supplies as they were needed. Mr. Tucker began erection of the carport approximately one week after July 11, 1983, when he received the first payment of $300. On July 29, 1983, Mr. Tucker received final payment of $350 so that he could complete the carport (Ex. 3). Approximately two weeks after July 29, 1983, Respondent completed the carport. A permit for the erection of the carport was required by Section 7-63, Buildings and Construction Regulations (The Building Code) of the City of Tallahassee. The language of that ordinance has not changed since 1957 (Ex. 1). No building permit was ever obtained by Mr. Tucker for erection of the carport. Approximately two weeks after completion of the carport, it collapsed after a heavy rainfall (Ex. 4 and 5). Mr. Tucker returned to repair the damaged carport. He erected center studs and was to return later to complete the damage repair. Mr. Tucker has failed to return to complete the damage repair after requested to do so by Jay Gladieux. When an administrative complaint has been filed against a contractor, personal service of the complaint is attempted upon the contractor at his last address of record. If personal service cannot be effectuated at the contractor's last address of record, further attempts are made to locate the contractor. The building departments, both City and County, the telephone company, utility company and post office are contacted. The building departments are contacted to determine if the contractor has obtained any permits, for the permits would list the contractor's address. The telephone company is contacted for prior and new telephone listing(s) with address(es). The post office is contacted for forwarding address(es). The utility company is contacted for new utility service which would contain a new address (es). If the contractor cannot be located after using these avenues, a diligent search affidavit is executed by the investigator who is attempting to serve the contractor. In September 1978 and at all times pertaining to the construction of the carport, Respondent's address of record with the Department was 1515-21 Paul Russell Road and P.O. Box 20234, Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent had not notified the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board of any change in his address (Ex. 7), other than by the new address revealed on the Election of Rights form he filed in response to the administrative complaint. The Department attempted to personally serve Mr. Tucker at his listed address and could not locate him there. On May 21, 1984, Robert E. Connell, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, executed a diligent search affidavit concerning service of the Administrative Complaint upon Mr. Tucker in this proceeding (Ex. 8).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent be found guilty of the charges in count one of the Administrative Complaint, as amended; that counts two and three be dismissed; and that he be fined $250.00. DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of April 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY,JR., Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Errol H. Powell, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Robert Tucker P.O. Box 10218 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
