The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor should be disciplined for the reasons set forth in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Raymond D. Simmons, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor having been issued license number RC 0055320 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). He has been licensed as a roofing contractor since November 1987. The Board's official records reflect that on July 1, 1991, the license was placed on the delinquent status for non-renewal and is now considered "invalid." 1/ When the events herein occurred, respondent was the qualifying agent for Simmons and Sons Plumbing and Roofing, Route 1, Box 191 (County Road 225), Waldo, Florida. Except for this action, there is no evidence that respondent has ever been disciplined by the Board. On May 3, 1988, respondent submitted a proposal to Charles and Thea Ansman to repair the roof on their home located at 5132 N. W. 29th Street, Gainesville, Florida. With minor modifications, the proposal was accepted by the Ansmans on May 10, 1988. According to the agreement, respondent was to perform the following services: Tear off old shingles dry-in with 15 lb. felt and replace with Corning Owens 20 year fungus resistant shingles. Replace all plumbing stacks and ease drips. Will replace back porch with 3-ply build-up roof will coat it with roof coating 10 year warranty on workmanship 20 year manufactor [sic] on shingles and build-up roof. Will replace all wood that needs to be replaced. Although the agreement does not specifically refer to ridge vents, the parties also agreed that respondent would install a ridge vent on the home. On May 16, 1988, respondent made application for a building permit from the City of Gainesville to "reroof" the Ansman's home. The permit was issued on May 20, 1988, in the name of Simmons & Sons Plumbing and Roofing. Respondent commenced work on the project on May 16 and continued the work over a period of several days. During this period of time, respondent was frequently on the job site overseeing the work. Indeed, Thea Ansman said respondent was at her home approximately half of the time while the repairs were being made. Thus, while respondent undoubtedly supervised the job, for the reasons stated in findings of fact 6 and 7, he nonetheless failed to "properly" supervise the work. On May 20, 1988, Thea Ansman paid respondent in full for the work. Although the job was not finished, respondent told Mrs. Ansman he would return the next day to complete the work. When respondent failed to return, the Ansmans repeatedly telephoned him during the next few months, but respondent either refused to speak with the Ansmans or told them he would return within a few days. However, the work was never finished and respondent never returned to the job site. While inspecting the roof one day, Charles Ansman noted that the roof trusses, an intregal part of the load bearing capacity of the structure, were cut at their peaks. The depth of the cuts was between one and two inches and was apparently the result of a saw-blade not set at the proper height when the ridge vent was installed. Sometime in July or August 1988 Charles Ansman discussed the damage with respondent and requested that respondent repair the same. Respondent refused to do so on the ground he was not responsible for the damage. Ansman then filed a complaint with the City of Gainesville Building Department. On September 9, 1988, a city building inspector inspected the home and confirmed that virtually every truss was cut and that the integrity of the roof was in jeopardy. He also observed that the soffits were improperly installed in some cases, and in others, were missing altogether. A notice of violation was then issued by the city on October 3, 1988, charging respondent with violating the Standard Building Code in two respects. More specifically, it was charged that respondent's workmanship violated sections 1701.1.1 and 1708.2.1 of the 1985 Standard Building Code, as amended through 1987. These sections pertain to the quality and design of wood trusses and the design of trussed rafters, respectively. At a hearing before the city's Trade Qualifying Board, respondent admitted his workers had violated the cited sections and caused the damage to the trusses. However, respondent denied liability on the theory that the workers, and not he personally, had negligently damaged the house. Respondent was thereafter issued a letter of reprimand for his actions. In order to recover their damages, which included the replacement of all damaged trusses, the Ansmans filed suit against respondent in Alachua County small claims court. On April 18, 1989, they received a judgment in the amount of $1,050. The judgment was eventually satisfied but only after the Ansmans threatened to levy on respondent's real property located in Alachua County. In preparation for the suit, the Ansmans obtained an engineering report which corroborates the findings made by the city building inspector concerning the damage and negligence on the part of respondent's work crew. By allowing the work to be performed in that manner, respondent was incompetent and committed misconduct in his practice of contracting. However, there is no evidence that respondent was grossly negligent during his supervision of the job. Respondent did not appear at hearing. However, prior to hearing he spoke to the city building inspector and acknowledged that the roof trusses were damaged as the result of negligence on the part of his crew. He also admitted this during the final hearing on the small claims action. At the same time, he denied that his workers had ever touched the soffits. This assertion, however, is rejected as not being credible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law, it is, recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1987), and that he pay a $1000 fine and his license be suspended for one year. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 16th day of December, 1991.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent are correct and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a Florida licensed professional engineer, holding license number PE 45941. There have been no prior disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent. The Respondent acted as the general contractor in the construction of his personal residence, which is the structure at issue in this proceeding. There is no evidence that the structure, as built, fails to meet applicable standards and requirements. On December 16, 1999, the Respondent submitted to the City of Clearwater Building Department, 29 sheets of building plans for alterations to the Respondent's residence. Of the 29 sheets, three were apparently signed and sealed by an engineer identified as Shields E. Clark, P.E., who did not testify at the hearing. Nineteen of the 29 sheets contain the statement, "[a] windload review of this plan has been made by Shields E. Clark, P.E. and it is certified to be in compliance with Section 1606 of the Standard Building Code 1994." The plans apparently confused the Clearwater Building Department official who reviewed the material. He asked the Respondent to meet with him and explain the project. The meeting occurred on or about January 10, 2000. During the meeting, the Respondent signed and sealed 22 of the 29 sheets; afterwards, the reviewing official noted they were unsigned. Four sheets of the initial plans were not signed and sealed by anyone. The Clearwater Building Department relies on the engineering certification in determining whether plans should be approved. The Respondent signed and sealed the plans as a professional engineer and the plans were approved. As to all of the plans submitted by the Respondent to the Clearwater Building Department, the Petitioner presented the expert testimony of James Owen Power, a Florida licensed engineer. Mr. Power's testimony was persuasive and is credited. (Sheet numbers identified herein reference the page numbers in Joint Exhibit 1.) According to Mr. Power's testimony, a number of deficiencies exist in the plans submitted on December 16, 1999. The deficiencies noted by Mr. Power include: the failure to specify which of two methods was used in calculating compliance with Southern Building Code windload requirements; depiction of a three-foot overhang projection on sheet 12 which is not depicted on other pages in the same plans; lack of a footing under a center post (sheet 19); lack of a beam at the center post to indicate what is being supported (sheet 21); inadequate support of the center post (sheet 22); a failure to provide for transfer of a portion of the roof load to an appropriate support (sheet 22); inadequate support for the load being carried (sheet 23); and depiction of a sample wall section atypical of all conditions throughout the proposed construction. On March 15, 2000, the Respondent submitted a 22-page set of drawings to the Clearwater Building Department that appear to have been signed and sealed by the Respondent on March 14, 2000. According to Mr. Power's testimony, a number of deficiencies exist in the plans submitted on March 15, 2000. The deficiencies noted by Mr. Power include: the failure to indicate whether differences in foundation, floor and roof framing, between the initial plan submission and the March 15 submission, were to be regarded as substituted plans or changes to the initial plans; the failure on five sheets to refer to windload certification; the failure to correlate position of cross beams to posts (sheet 43); differing numbers and locations of cross beams within the plan submission (sheets 43 and 44); a cantilevered wall that is identified without appropriate detailing; omission on sheet 45 of a "transverse" beam depicted on sheet 44; depiction of a wall not previously shown and two previously un-shown beams over the garage door (sheet 46); the appearance of a previously un-shown and unspecified pipe column in the middle of the garage opening (sheet 46); the lack of proper identification of a post and partition depicted on the column view (sheet 47); inconsistent identification of the dimensions of a balcony overhang (sheets 43, 49 and 52); and alteration of original rafter sizes without notice of the change (sheet 63). On March 28, 2000, the Respondent submitted an 11-page set of drawings and two sheets of cost estimates to the Clearwater Building Department that appear to have been signed and sealed by the Respondent on March 28, 2000. According to Mr. Power's testimony, a number of deficiencies exist in the plans submitted on March 28, 2000. The deficiencies noted by Mr. Power include: omission of a footing and pipe column depicted in the second set of plans without notification of change (sheet 31); the inability to determine the intent of "back addition lower plan" (sheet 32); alteration of the notation of a wall from the second set of plans (sheet 33); inconsistent depiction of the new wall foundation at the left side of the structure (sheet 33); inconsistent identification of the footing at the center of the garage opening (sheets 31, 33, and 34); inconsistent depiction of footers (sheets 34 and 35); inconsistent depiction of columns and beams (sheets 33, 34 and 35); and alteration in the manner of depicting partitions within the structure from the depiction contained in the initial submission (sheet 37). On June 12, 2000, the Respondent submitted another 11- page set of plans to the Clearwater Building Department that appear to have been signed and sealed by the Respondent on March 28, 2000. According to Mr. Power's testimony, a number of deficiencies exist in the plans submitted on June 12, 2000. The deficiencies noted by Mr. Power include: identification of beams as "optional" without defining the requirements of either option (sheets 64 and 65); depiction of knee braces not previously identified in previous plans (sheet 65); inconsistent depiction of partitions (sheets 65 and 69); alteration of wall width from second plan submission without adequate notification of change (sheets 49 and 66); depiction of knee braces without proper consideration of lateral load (sheet 66); depiction of a diagonal structure the intent of which is unclear (sheet 68); inconsistent depiction of a center joist (sheets 38 and 69); alteration to the previous depiction of rafters without notification (sheet 67); deletion of footing and a column in the center of the garage opening without notification (sheets 68 and 70); and the addition of a door to the left of the garage opening without notification of change from prior submissions. The Respondent's building plan submissions fail to meet professional standards. Structural elements were added, altered, and deleted without appropriate notification, and within submissions, elements were inconsistently depicted. The Respondent's failure to meet professional standards resulted in building plans that were ambiguous and unclear.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order reprimanding Phillip J. Matonte, P.E., for negligence in this matter, and placing him on probation for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 11th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 J. Robert Griffin, Esquire Tilton & Metzger, P.A. 1435 East Piedmont Drive, Suite 210 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for one or more examination questions answered by him during the June 1990 Certified Building Contractor Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for reexamination at the June 1990 certified building contractor examination. On Part II, he received a score of 74.0. A minimum passing score is 69.01. On Part III, he received a score of 67.00. Minimum passing score is 69.01. Petitioner had previously passed Part I of the exam. Petitioner initially challenged question numbers 4, 10 and 17. The National Assessment Institute prepares licensure examinations for building contractors in the State of Florida under authority of the Office of Examination Services, Department of Professional Regulation. The Institute prepared question numbers 4, 10 & 17 for the certified building contractor examination administered on June 26 and 27, 1990. As to question number 4, the only correct response to the question was answer "B". Petitioner's answer to the question was "D", which was not acceptable. As to question number 10, the correct response was answer "C". Petitioner's answer "B", was not acceptable. As to question number 17, the correct response was answer "C". Petitioner's answer "A" was not acceptable. The Department's determination that answers "B", "C" and "C" were the only appropriate answers was not arbitrary and unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the challenge by Petitioner that he be awarded a passing grade for Part III of the June 1990 certified building contractors examination be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Uebelacker 326 NW Catherine Avenue Port Charlotte, FL 33952 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Frank H. Suesz is a licensed general contractor having been issued certificate number CG C020463. On July 21, 1981, the Respondent Suesz submitted an application to the Petitioner Department of Professional Regulation to take the certified contractors' examination as a general contractor. On the application, the Respondent Suesz stated that he had four (4) years of construction experience, one (1) year of on-the-job-supervisory experience, and some experience in the construction of buildings in excess of three(3) stories in height. The Respondent's work experience' was verified by Ethel C. Douglas, his mother-in-law and a building owner. Douglas' verification on the Respondent's application was notarized. The experience claimed by the Respondent on his application involved his prior position with Steel Systems Construction Company, a seller and erector of pre-engineered metal buildings. Steel Systems is owned by Richard Spinnenweber, who is also the Respondent's cousin and the complainant in this case. Steel Systems holds the franchise for American Steel Buildings while the Respondent's company, ABCO Construction, Inc., has acquired the franchise for Pre-Engineered Steel Buildings. Since the Respondent's resignation from Steel Systems, his relationship with his cousin has been anything but cordial. The Respondent and Spinnenweber have engaged in litigation concerning the termination of their former relationship and are now active business competitors through their respective companies. 1/ The Respondent's company sells and erects pre-engineered, prefabricated steel buildings that are built in a factory, shipped to the job site and erected. One witness for the Petitioner analogized the construction of these buildings to "erector sets". (See Tr. at 43) Since being certified in 1981, the Respondent's company, ABCO Construction, Inc. has successfully completed approximately 40 construction projects including a 45,000 foot roof for Pan Am at Miami International Airport, a 10,000 square foot marina warehouse in Key Largo, and has worked for the U.S. Customs Service and the Air Force. No evidence was presented that any of the Respondent's jobs completed since he became certified, were substandard or present a threat to the public health, safety and welfare. Permits were pulled on these projects and building inspections were passed when required. Prior to moving to Florida, the Respondent Suesz had varied construction experience which including supervising the construction of building additions, a shipping storage warehouse and a factory for Beckley Perforating Company, which is headquartered in Garwood, New Jersey. This testimony is corroborated by a letter dated May 13, 1982, from Frank P. Marano, President of Beckley, which also noted the Respondent's ". . .unusual competency in all areas of responsibility as to construction, maintenance and expansion." [See Petitioner's Exhibit 3(x).] Additionally, the Respondent has some construction experience in excess of three stories, which dates from his work with his father on apartment buildings located out of state. The extent of the Respondent's experience which dates from the 1940s, is set forth in detail in Respondent's Exhibit 2. Although his position at Steel Systems was primarily sales, the Respondent Suesz also worked in the field when necessary. 2/ While employed by Steel Systems, the Respondent supervised construction of two large dock roofs in 1978 and 1979, plus three buildings in 1980 and 1981 for the Homestead Tomato Packing Company, Inc. By letter dated May 13, 1982, Rosario Strano, company owner, commended the Respondent for his work and stated that he intended ". . .to negotiate with him for all future requirements for buildings, dock roofs, etc." [Petitioner's Exhibit 3(y).] In early 1989, the Respondent Suesz built an addition to the Hialeah factory of Brice-Southern, Inc. His supervision of the project included pouring and finishing the floor slab. Philip H. Brice recommended the Respondent's work via letter dated May 13, 1982, and stated ". . .that he would give him the opportunity to do our future requirements." Petitioner's Exhibit 3(z).] According to Gerald Antel, Trustee, Sunshine Skateway, the Respondent supervised the construction of a $250,000 roller rink. [Petitioner's Exhibit 3(aa).] Finally, in late 1980 and 1981, the Respondent supervised construction of a 16,800 square foot building for Woal Wholesale Plumbing Supply, Inc. His work on this project was observed and recommended by Randy S. Woal. [Petitioner's Exhibit 3(bb).]
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent Frank H. Suesz, be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1983.
The Issue Based upon the stipulated facts, only one issue, a legal one, must be resolved. The issue is whether Section 489.111(4)(c), Florida Statutes, is properly applied by the Board which interprets this section to require a minimum of four years of experience as a certified contractor. Having considered the statute and the Board's position in applying the interpretation above, it is concluded that the Board's interpretation is erroneous.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Margaret K. Roberts, was licensed as a Certified Building Contractor October 19, 1984. Petitioner filed an application to take the State Certified General Contractor's Examination on or about December 19, 1984. At the time Petitioner applied to take the Certified General Contractor's Examination, she held Certified Building Contractor's License No. CB C031970 and she had four years of proven experience in the Certified Building Contractor's field, although she had only been certified as a building contractor since October 19, 1984. One may obtain experience in an area of contracting without being certified. Petitioner is not qualified by virtue of holding a baccalaureate degree or experience as a residential contractor. Petitioner was not certified as a building contractor for four years prior to applying for the general contractor's examination. Petitioner's only basis of claimed eligibility to take the General Contractor's Examination is Section 489.111(4)(c), Florida Statutes. The Respondent denied the Petitioner's application to take the certification examination because of insufficient time as a certified building contractor in accordance with Florida Statutes 489.111(4)(c). Other than the issue of requisite experience as a certified contractor, Petitioner meets all other statutes and Board Rules regarding eligibility for the Certified General Contractor's Examination.
Recommendation Based upon the stipulated facts and the conclusions of law, it is recommended that Section 489.111(4)(c), Florida Statutes, be interpreted to include qualifying service in a non-certified capacity and that Petitioner's application to take the building contractor's examination be approved. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of March, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1986 COPIES FURNISHED: James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 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 Maxwell G. Battle, Esquire 8204-A West Waters Avenue Suite 350 Tampa, Florida 33615 Arden Siegendorf, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD MARGARET K. ROBERTS, License No. CB-C031970 Petitioner, DOAH CASE NO. 85-2240 DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, David R. Oldham, is a registered architect in the State of Florida, holding license no. 5786. The original date of his registration is August 31, 1972. The Respondent's license is presently in a probationary status. He is a self-employed architect. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice and the practice standards of architecture and architects in Florida, pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 481, Florida Statutes. COUNTS I & II Pursuant to a written contract entered into July 10, 1980, and signed on July 14, 1980, the Respondent agreed to provide architectural services to one "William D. Buck or "Bill Buck" for additions and alterations to his automobile dealership known as Bill Buck Chevrolet, Inc., located at 2324 South Tamiami Trail, Venice, Florida. The contract provided for the preparation of various plans and construction documents preparatory to construction of a new service building of approximately 5,000 square feet area, with additions and alterations to the existing office area of approximately 800 square feet, and the relocation of an existing inspection facility to provide for two entrance and exit lanes to automotive service-bays. The contract called for two service stalls to be depicted in each of four service-bays in the new building for a total of eight service stalls. A roof was to span across the driveway connecting the existing structure with the new service building to be constructed pursuant to the plans. The contract required Respondent to prepare a site plan, floor plans, elevations and necessary sections, details and schedules in order to permit the owner, Bill Buck, to invite bids and construct the project. The Respondent undertook to provide a set of plans from which he and his contractor could build the entire project. The Respondent prepared the plans for Mr. Buck and they were given to contractor David Malcolmson. Mr. Malcolmson suggested that the building be changed from a metal building to a concrete block structure because it could be built cheaper and faster. Mr. Buck agreed to that change and the Respondent made changes to his drawings to indicate that the type of construction had shifted from metal to masonry. The new building was ultimately constructed as a single story structure consisting of a poured concrete monolithic floor slab- footing, with filled masonry concrete block walls and a prestressed concrete slab roof. The Respondent prepared and issued a nine sheet set of plans, dated December 22, 1980, for the additions and alterations to the Chevrolet dealership. All nine sheets in this set of plans were signed and sealed by Respondent and ultimately filed with the Sarasota County Building Department. These plans are known hereinafter as the "permit set." On December 23, 1980, the contractor applied for a building permit, and on January 12, 1981, the building department issued the permit authorizing construction in accordance with the permit set of plans, signed, sealed and prepared by Respondent. The permit set of plans contained the entire specifications for the project, and the entire specifications filed with that building department. During construction, Mr. Buck himself, became concerned about the integrity of the foundation of the building. He questioned his contractor, Mr. Malcolmson, about the strength of the foundation since he knew that the type of construction had changed from metal to the prestressed concrete and concrete block structure having a substantially greater weight. At or near the completion of the construction, various cracks were observed in the walls and floors which caused a great deal of concern to Mr. Buck. He requested an inspection from the building department, and the building inspector became concerned upon seeing the cracks and asked the contractor to have an expert investigate and determine whether a serious structural problem existed. Thus, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the building department, the contractor hired Ardaman and Associates, Inc. (Ardaman), a firm of consulting engineers, to test the foundation. On June 1, 1981, Ardaman inspected the wall and foundation system of the new building and issued a report to the contractor in the form of a letter. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 16) Ardaman had discovered a crack in the floor slab running parallel to the north wall about three feet away from that wall extending the entire length of the building. The crack was found by Ardaman to be a "stress-relief" crack caused by settlement of the monolithic foundation. The foundation was loaded and tension stress was transmitted to the top of the slab causing a tension failure (crack) in the concrete slab. Ardaman's test revealed that the soil under the wall and foundation had a bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot. The plans themselves had envisioned a 2,000 pound per square foot allowable soilbearing load. Indeed, the soil pressure compression was ultimately 5,285 pounds per square foot actual load from the weight of the building. Ardaman additionally noted two vertical cracks in that wall attributed to temperature changes. Ardaman thus recommended packing concrete under the existing foundation to prevent undermining or eroding of the soil under the foundation, since the foundation was actually above grade. The existing foundation supporting the north wall was only a half-inch from the adjacent property line, and was above the adjacent grade by 3 to 12 inches. This is a potentially serious condition since it allows erosion of the soil under the foundation and undermining and a resulting collapse of the wall could occur. The building official from the county recommended that the contractor excavate and then backfill the excavation under the foundation with concrete to bring the lower edge of the footing down below grade level to take care of possible erosion problems. Erosion could remove some of the bearing soil from under the foundation. With that recommendation, on July 14, 1981, the building department issued a certificate of occupancy. On August 26, 1981, at the request of the building contractor, Ardaman made an additional inspection of the facility. On August 27, Ardaman informed the contractor and the building department that no new conditions were observed at the site, but described for the first time the rotation of the footing which could cause concomitant rotation of the wall (leaning). Ardaman measured the movement of the foundation system and found that the footing had rotated or tilted approximately three-fourths of an inch to one inch at the point of the wall's contact with the footing. This could cause rotation of the wall which would decrease the bearing area of the prestressed roof slabs or beams bearing and supported by the top of the wall. On November 4, 1981, the building department notified the contractor of its concern that the problem with the service building had not yet been resolved. The building department was concerned that because of footing or wall rotation, a loss of roof slab bearing area might have occurred and that necessary correction should be made. Because these corrections had not yet been made, the building department recommended that occupancy be discontinued until corrections could be made to the structure. On December 15, Ardaman urged the contractor to complete the following items of remedial work: To underpin portions of the foundation, originally constructed below grade, to increase the safety factor and to comply with the Southern Standard Building Code minimum cover requirement; To retain a professional engineer to design an auxiliary bearing system that would prohibit significant wall rotation, as the wall had already rotated .085 inches in 8.0 feet; and To fill floor cracks and wall cracks. Ardaman's recommendations and findings of deficiencies regarding the structure were put in a letter filed with the building department and entered into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 19, corroborated by testimony of the building official, Mr. Light. It was thus established that the design of the addition to Bill Buck Chevrolet, Inc., did not comply with appropriate building code requirements related to foundation and upgrade. On approximately February 4, 1982, the attorney for Bill Buck retained Mr. William Snell, P.E., a consulting engineer. Mr. Snell was retained to review the project to determine if serious problems existed in the design or construction. Vertical cracks were observed in the north wall on both the inside and outside surfaces. Several feet inside the building a long crack parallel to the north wall had developed in the four-inch concrete floor slab. By this time, Ardaman's recommendation to pack concrete under the north footing to prevent erosion, had already been performed. The building department still had reservations about the integrity of the building. Recent measurements for instance had revealed that the north wall was leaning three-eighths of an inch north at the ceiling line. Mr. Snell reviewed a blueprint copy of Respondent's permit set of plans. This permit set of plans contains nine sheets (eight architectural and structural sheets and one electrical sheet). They contained no topographic survey and no building elevations are depicted. Mr. Snell's written opinions regarding the project are contained in his letter of February 15, 1982, in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 20 and his letter of February 17, 1982, to the building official, in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 21. Additionally, Mr. Snell was accepted and testified as an expert witness in structural engineering at the hearing. Mr. Snell described the project as consisting of the new service building which abuts the adjacent common property line on the west side of the property on which the building was built. The west wall of the service building is one-half inch from that property line. The building contains a series of service-bays containing a total of eight maintenance stalls next to that common property line. The building also has waiting rooms and office space. Between the original existing Bill Buck Chevrolet building and the new service building addition is a drive-through structure for cars which consists of a paved drive covered by a roof made of prestressed concrete "double-t's". One of the problems extant on the face of the plans is that they contain a number of details left over from the original steel building design before it was decided to change to a masonry structure. Changing from the steel to masonry construction added considerable weight to the structure because a precast concrete roof deck is considerably heavier than a metal building roof deck as are masonry walls compared to sheet steel walls and steel columns, etc. The change from steel to masonry as the construction mode is significant in at least two ways: First, the change created confusion in understanding tie plans. Some steel details in the plans have been voided yet others are still on the plans creating an apparent inconsistency. For instance, Sheet 2 shows steel columns and overhead framing lines, "H sections" and pipe columns, all steel components used for metal building construction. Sheet 8 still shows some walls as "non- block." Other sheets, however, such as Sheets 4 and 5, indicate only masonry for the walls. Sheet 8 indicates some steel details explicitly voided, yet others, as on Sheet 2, are only partially erased so that "ghost images" or vestiges of the "steel plan" remain. Further confusion is shown by the inconsistency between the "ghost images" on Sheets 2 and 8 which show the "H" columns and pipe columns on Sheet 2 reversed on Sheet 8. The Respondent obviously was not conscious of the impact of the change from the steel to masonry mode throughout the set of drawings. Secondly, the change from steel to masonry is significant because the additional weight was not adequately provided for structurally. Some of the structural supports for a steel building were erased, yet the remaining thickened edge floor slab was not redesigned to provide an adequate foundation for masonry. In essence, the foundation is inadequate with the great weight of the masonry construction placed on top of it. In reality, the mere thickened edge on the floor slab does not constitute an adequate footing or foundation, based on Mr. Snell's analysis of the downward loads on the foundation. The footings were eccentrically loaded by being on the edge of the foundation instead of centered. The forces exceed both the 2,000 pounds per square foot allowable soil bearing pressure that is depicted on Sheet 8 of the plans, and the 3,000 pounds per square foot that the Ardaman firm reports as acceptable soil pressure. The soil pressure compression found by Mr. Snell was 5,285 pounds per square foot. Thus, the footings were shown to be considerably overloaded, causing the thin four-inch floor slab to crack, and then to rotate, carrying the wall in rotation with it when soil eroded out from underneath it due to the footing being installed originally above grade level. The building was dangerously overstressed as designed, and should have been dismantled or strengthened by placing new footings and piers under supporting steel beams to take the roof load off the overloaded, common property line wall. Additionally, the plans depicted no "book" specifications and made no note of the proper concrete strength to be used nor the degree of compaction of soil required. They depicted no design loads for the roof, floor, nor for wind. No roof framing plans were provided and the Respondent did not adequately depict the roof span over the driveway and failed to exercise due care in drafting the roof span. The Respondent never developed a "so-called Section E-E" referred to on Sheet 3 of the plans. Nowhere in the plans were any support beams over the service stall doors shown and no reinforcement for this area was depicted. No reinforcement was specified for the concrete block wall piers between the service stall doors of the building. The east wall of the structure with its series of wall piers between the service-bay doors is actually more severely loaded than the west side of the building where the cracking occurred. The cracking occurred on the west side, however, because erosion of soil from under the foundation aggravated the problem of excessive load on the foundation. The load on the east wall of the structure, however, is 29,000 pounds per square foot for the wall piers, which also are merely sitting on the thickened slab, as is the west wall. Additionally, the Respondent failed to require a topographic survey and failed to make a grading and drainage plan for the site. The property is characterized by a downward gradient towards the west wall, and therefore, if there had been a topographic survey, the Respondent could have designed a "stepped-down" foundation to keep the foundations below grade. The Respondent, however, failed to do this, which resulted in the foundation for the west wall being above grade with the resulting erosion problems. Additionally, no crack control or expansion joints were provided for in the plans for the wall where Ardaman Engineering found the temperature cracks. After examining the plans and the building, Mr. Snell concluded that the plans were seriously deficient and that the building, as evidenced by cracking and exceptional deflection of structural members, was in a failing condition, with a total collapse being conceivable. Mr. Snell filed a complaint with the Petitioner and informed the building department on February 23, 1982. On that date, on the basis of Mr. Snell's report, the building officials suspended the certificate of occupancy. On that date the building official requested that the Respondent submit complete structural calculations, to which the Respondent never replied. After the certificate of occupancy was suspended, Mr. Snell prepared drawings for structural repairs and another contractor was retained to obtain a repair permit for the building. Thus the project was ultimately structurally corrected, and on June 14, 1982, the building department reinstated the certificate of occupancy. The Respondent never asked for any site information, topographical or otherwise from the owner, Mr. Buck, and the contractor, Mr. Malcolmson, had to establish the floor elevation for the new building. The Respondent contends that he issued the permit drawings without the topographical and grade information because Mr. Buck indicated that an engineer would separately furnish all required site information. The fact remains, however, that the Respondent allowed the drawings to be issued from his office without the grade and topographical information, thus signing, sealing and submitting an incomplete set of plans to his client. Mr. David Titsch is a registered architect and was accepted as an expert witness in the field of architecture on behalf of Petitioner. He established that it is customary for an architect to require an owner to have a topographic survey performed. The architect's responsibility is to see that the survey is performed so that he may use that information to design the project and adequately prepare drawings. If an architect requests his client to provide such information and the client or owner fails to do so, the architect should proceed no further. It is a departure from reasonable and prudent architectural practice to allow drawings to be signed, sealed and issued as final plans from an architect's office which do not depict grade information. It is particularly important to show grade information for adjacent property when proposing an addition to a structure that will abut on a property line, as in the instant situation. In addition to the failure to depict site grade, the Respondent failed to illustrate floor elevations, simply drawing a floor slab at an undetermined elevation which put the burden on the contractor to estimate where to put the floor of the building. Serious loading problems on the footing along the west property line were demonstrated based upon Mr. Titsch's calculations, as well. It is a design error to put a ten-inch deep "floating slab" foundation along a property line. This type design is insufficient because it creates a hazard along the property line where there could be erosion of the supporting soil and where the architect, contractor and the owner cannot control what use the adjacent property owner might make of his property, which could have the effect of undermining the slab-type foundation. In fact, the slab was constructed above grade and the monolithic slab footing became exposed when a washout occurred on the adjacent property. Additionally, the span over the driveway was excessive and structural support for the roof slab (24-inch "double T" prestressed concrete members) was inadequate. The foundation and vertical structural support was simply not designed to carry that load, and the span of the roof over the driveway area was bordering on failure. No beams were depicted supporting the wall and roof sections over the garage door openings. Thus, the contractor was left to guess, once again, as to how to support the building above these openings. In light of these deficiencies, Mr. Titsch opined that the plans depart from acceptable principles of professional architectural practice and could not result in a sound, safe building. Mr. Robert Dykes, AIA, testified as an architectural expert for Petitioner. Mr. Dykes reviewed the permit set of plans and testified concerning his expert opinion regarding the deficiencies appearing on the face of the plans. Thus, it was established, as to Sheet 1, the site plan, that the floor paving and site heights are not indicated, the water, sewer, electric and phone services are not shown, and the drainage for storm water is not indicated. The present and proposed buildings are poorly dimensioned. On Sheet 2 the thickness of walls and vertical reinforcing are not shown. The east-west dimensions do not correctly "add up." On the floor plan depicted on Sheet 3, the vertical structural steel is not shown in the garage stall areas. On Sheet 4, the foundation, a small rectangle is depicted, assumed to be the location of vertical reinforcing steel, but it is not shown in other floor plan depictions, rendering the various sheets inconsistent. Footing requirements for the front wall of the stalls are not depicted. On Sheet 5, the front elevations and southwest elevations of the main office area are not clear as to the span condition at the driveway between both buildings (roof span), nor is the vertical height of the front elevation and exterior building material illustrated. On Sheet 6 the type of concrete block to be used is not clearly indicated, and once again, solid rectangular squares are shown on this sheet to possibly indicate vertical reinforcing, but the exact meaning of these depicted squares was not described and they are not consistent with the foundation plan. Structural reinforcing requirements between and over the overhead doors are not indicated. On Sheet 7 the wall sections are not clear as to the sizes of the concrete beams, the reinforcing requirements and the "double-T" members and flat slab details. The wall sections are further shown to be inadequately drawn because they do not depict connection details between the flat slab and the steel or concrete beams. As to Sheet 8, no requirements for vertical reinforcement are shown and the original plans drawn for a metal building application have not been sufficiently modified to depict an adequate, safely- supported, precast concrete roof system. Finally, Sheet 9 regarding the electrical plan, does not provide any concrete information regarding the type of light fixtures, wattage, electrical circuits, air conditioning voltage or panel board locations. Mr. Dykes opined that the building failed structurally and was unsafe as designed and built. COUNT III On July 26, 1982, the Respondent signed a stipulation in DOAH Case No. 83-809, agreeing to pay a sum of money to former clients, Herman Chait and Ann R. Chait. The sum of $1,500, plus $26.55 costs, represents a judgment entered against the Respondent in favor of the Chaits by the County Court in and for Sarasota County. Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, the Respondent was to pay that amount in equal monthly installments over a period of 15 months, during which time the Respondent would be placed on probation by the Board of Architecture until the amount was paid in full. On September 28, 1982, the Board of Architecture entered a Final Order, incorporating in its entirety the stipulation signed by the Respondent. The final payment of the amount referred was due on December 28, 1982. On February 22, 1984, an order finding probable cause was entered by the Secretary of the Department of Professional Regulation for the Respondent's violation of the stipulation. At the instant proceeding the Respondent admitted that he had signed the stipulation, that he had not paid the amount, and that the time limit for payment had expired. The Respondent also admitted receiving two letters from Petitioner's counsel as well as a telephone call reminding him of his obligation to pay the Chaits and the possibility of automatic suspension of his license for failure to pay. His sole defense is that his personal and financial circumstances did not permit him to meet that obligation, although he acknowledges that it is due and he intends to eventually pay it.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore
