Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered roofing contractor, having been issued license number RC 0034898. He operates a business known as B & P Roofing at 244 Tollgate Trail, Longwood, Florida. The Respondent has appropriately qualified the business name of "B & P Roofing" with the Petitioner. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, with regard to licensure of building contractors, the regulation of their licensure status and methods of operation and practice. During June of 1981, the Respondent, doing business as B & P Roofing, contracted to perform a re-roofing job with Mr. Jack Mewhirter, whereby he was to put a new roof on a residence at 137 Variety Tree Circle, Altamonte Springs, Florida. The construction of the roof was contracted for and completed during June, 1981. The Respondent failed to obtain a building permit before or during construction of the roof and also failed to obtain a final inspection of the roof when it was finished in June, 1981. The Respondent's testimony establishes that the Respondent was familiar with the building code adopted in Seminole County and familiar with the requirement that he was responsible as the contractor, to obtain a permit before commencing construction of the roof and that he was also responsible for obtaining a final inspection by the Seminole County Building Official. In response to a complaint from Mr. Mewhirter, the owner of the residence, the Seminole County Building Officials, Mr. Flippent and Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer became aware that no building permit had been obtained for the re-roofing job and that no final inspection had been obtained pursuant thereto. Accordingly, Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer inspected the roof in November, 1981, and Mr. Flippent informed the Respondent of the necessity to obtain a building permit and a final inspection. Thus, on November 10, 1981, the Respondent obtained the building permit and called for the final inspection. Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer was unable to sign the final inspection document as "satisfactory" because he was unable to adequately inspect the roof once it was finished. He had been unable to inspect the method by which it was installed during its construction due to the Respondent failing to inform him or his superiors that the roof was under construction and that inspections were needed at that time. hen the Respondent entered into the contract with Mr. Mewhirter, he informed Mr. Mewhirter that he would not obtain a building permit because that would "drive the cost up." The Respondent, in his testimony, denied that he made such a statement, but Mr. Mewhirter's testimony is here found more credible because of the facts established by Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer's testimony that a random check of the roof after he finally was able to inspect it in November, 1981, revealed that all the shingles he examined were nailed with only three nails and were nailed too high up near the upper edge of the shingle, which is a substandard method of installing the roof and which permits storm winds or rain to raise the shingles, causing possible damage to the roof. The fact that the roof was installed in this fashion and that fact that the Respondent admittedly knew of the requirements of the building code and the requirement that a permit be obtained and inspections be made during the course of and at the conclusion of the job, indicated that the Respondent was knowingly trying to avoid the necessity of obtaining a permit and a final inspection and thus lends sufficient credibility to Mr. Mewhirter's testimony regarding the reason the Respondent obtained no permit. In any event, the roof was shown to not be constructed in accordance with the building code. In summary, it was established that the Respondent knew of the appropriate building code, was thoroughly familiar with it and and indeed had installed an excess of seven hundred roofs since he entered the business. He was aware, in connection with the need for obtaining a building permit, that he should also obtain inspections during the construction and a final inspection when the roof was finished, which he failed to do until reminded of his violation by the building department five months after the roof was completed, at which time it was too late to perform the appropriate inspections. Thus, the roof could not be approved by the building department of Seminole County. The Respondent admitted to only being present on the subject job site for approximately an hour and a half during the entire construction of the roof and he admittedly did not bother to look to see if a permit was on the job site at that time, or any other time. Finally, although the Respondent remonstrated that his failure to get a building permit at the appropriate time was inadvertent and due to his assumption that other office personnel had taken care of the obtaining of the permit, that testimony is not found to be credible since it was established, through the testimony of Mr.. Mewhirter, that the Respondent consciously decided not to obtain a permit prior to starting construction of the roof.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, George G. Vincent, be found guilty of the charges contained in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint and that an administrative fine of $1,000 be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Siegel, Esquire 292 U.S. Highway 17-92 P.O. Drawer 965 Fern Park, Florida 32730 James A. 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 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, v. DPR Case No. 0017669 DOAH Case No. 82-1341 GEORGE C. VINCENT B & P Roofing RC 0034898 244 Tollgate Trail Longwood, Florida 32750, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not Respondent engaged in acts and/or conduct, which will be set forth hereinafter in detail, in violation of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, as alleged by Petitioner in its Administrative Complaints filed herein dated December 1, 1981, and March 8, 1982. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant:
Findings Of Fact By its Administrative Complaints filed herein, Petitioner charges Respondent with three counts of deliberately disregarding the applicable building code, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), presently codified as Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1981); with violation of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1979), in that he abandoned a construction project; with violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1979), presently codified as Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1981), in that he is guilty of fraud or deceit or misconduct in the practice of contracting; with violation of Section 489.129(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1979), presently codified as Section 489.129(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1981), to wit: Section 455.227(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1979) in that he is guilty of a misleading, deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representation in the practice of contracting; with violation of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, to wit: Section 489.117(2), Florida Statutes (1979), in that he was engaging in the practice of contracting in a county where he was not properly registered; with violation of Section 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes (979), presently codified as Section 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1981), in that he aided or abetted an unlicensed person to evade the provisions of the contracting license law; with violation of Section 489.129(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1979), presently codified as Section 489.129(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1981), in that he knowingly combined or conspired with an unlicensed person and allowed his registration to be used by an unlicensed person with the intent to evade the provisions of the contracting license law; with violation of Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1979), presently codified as Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1981), in that he acted in the capacity of a contractor in a name other than as registered; with violation of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1979), presently codified as Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1981), to wit: Sections 489.119(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (1979), in that he failed to properly qualify a company under which he was doing business. In support of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint filed in Case No. 82-1554, Petitioner presented the testimony of Newton B. Webb and Lewis Abbott, and introduced three (3) exhibits into evidence. Respondent testified on his own behalf and introduced no exhibits. In support of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint filed in Case No. 82-1645, Petitioner presented the testimony of Gladys Durden, Carolyn Thomas, and Cory M. Henriksen and introduced four (4) exhibits. Respondent testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of Abe Anderson. Respondent introduced one (1) exhibit. Respondent is a registered residential contractor having been issued license No. RR0022063. That license was initially issued during 1976 and is current through calendar year 1983. On February 17, 1983, (Case No. 82-1554), Respondent entered into a contract with Newton B. and Flora Mae Webb to construct a fireplace in their trailer for the sum of $1,725. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) The contract was on a letterhead indicating that the Respondent was doing business as James Construction Company. The fireplace was subsequently constructed by the Respondent and payment was made in full. (Stipulation of counsel, TR p. 10). Respondent did not obtain a building permit to construct the fireplace for the Webbs. The Southern Standard Building Code, which is the building code that was being enforced in Wakulla County, Florida, during times material when the fireplace for the Webbs was being constructed, contains a provision which requires that a permit be obtained for the construction of a fireplace. (TR p. 16; Section 106.1, Southern Standard Building Code.) Respondent is not licensed to engage in the practice of contracting in Wakulla County. The site of the Webb home, where the Respondent constructed the fireplace in question, is in Wakulla County. Respondent has not qualified James Construction Company as the entity through which he would engage in the practice of contracting in Wakulla County. Following completion of the fireplace for the Webbs, Mr. Webb complained that the fireplace was improperly constructed in that smoke poured from the hearth in a profuse manner. Mr. Webb complained that his fire detection alarm was constantly triggered by the smoke pouring out of the chimney. Respondent returned to the Webbs' residence and checked the fireplace and its operation on at least three occasions. On the fourth occasion, Respondent returned to the Webb residence with his counsel and an official from the City of Apalachicola, Florida. A small fire with paper was started and Respondent demonstrated to the Webbs, his attorney, and the building official how the damper in the fireplace operated and what Mr. Webb was doing wrong in the operation of the damper. Respondent gave Mr. Webb and those in attendance a brief demonstration in the proper and correct manner in which the damper should be opened so that the chimney vented properly. During that demonstration, the chimney did not smoke. During an inspection by the building official, Lewis Abbott, the following violations of the Southern Standard Building Code were observed: The chimney did not extend three feet above the roof of the residence. The foundation of the fireplace did not comport with the minimum requirements of the Southern Standard Building Code. The liner between the wall and the flue of the chimney was approximately 3-1/2 inches, whereas the minimum thickness required by the Southern Standard Building Code is 8 inches. A smoke chamber was not installed. The outside chimney was constructed against a combustible wall and the one-inch minimum clearance requirement was not met. The hearth was of insufficient size and was not supported sufficiently by a foundation that meets the minimum requirements of the Southern Standard Building Code. (TR p. 17) It is found that these conditions existed at the Webb residence at the time of Inspector Abbott's inspection. On September 30, 1979, (Case No. 82-1645), Respondent entered into a contract with Gladys M. Durden to rehabilitate her residence for the sum of $12,000. (Stipulation of counsel and TR p. 65). Respondent agreed inter alia, to repair the plumbing; install new flooring; build an extra room; install a new kitchen sink and cabinet; install vinyl floors as needed; and replace several windows and doors. According to Ms. Durden and Carolyn Thomas, Manager of the Federal Block Grant Program, the principal items which the Respondent failed to complete and/or correct centered around problems with the plumbing and his failure to install new flooring in the bathroom. Payment for the construction to the Durden residence was made by draws from the Block Grant Program and Respondent received payment based on two-party checks, which required, for negotiation, that both payees (Respondent and the homeowner-- Gladys Durden) sign the check. At the time Respondent presented the check representing final payment for construction to the Durden residence, Ms. Durden refused to sign it based on her claim that Respondent had failed to complete all of the work as contracted. Respondent presented the check for payment, which was honored, at the local bank in Apalachicola even though it was not endorsed by Ms. Durden. Prior to receiving payment for the final phase of the work to the Durden residence, Respondent had the construction on the Durden residence checked by the local building officials and a certificate of occupancy was issued which enabled Respondent to receive final payment for the Durden project from the City of Apalachicola's Block Grant Program. After negotiating the check representing the final payment for construction work done to the Durden residence, Respondent did not return to the site despite notification from the City Attorney of Apalachicola, the Block Grant Administrator, Carolyn Thomas, and phone messages received from Ms. Durden. Respondent encountered numerous problems while in the construction phase on the Durden residence. Ms. Durden had ten (10) children living in her home at the time construction was ongoing and, as a result, Respondent had to redo several phases of the work which had been previously done days earlier based on the number of residents living in the Durden home. Respondent did not return to the Durden residence based on his fear that Ms. Durden believed in "voodoo" and his position that he had completed all that was required by him pursuant to the contract. Respondent utilized the services of a plumber, Abe Anderson, to complete the plumbing and flooring phase of the Durden project. Abe Anderson installed a new floor, consisting of 1/2 inch plywood, and a new vinyl covering to the bathroom floor of the Durden residence in all areas except where the bath tub sat in the bathroom. When Respondent left the Durden project the plumbing operated properly. (Testimony of Respondent, Anderson, and Building Inspector Cory M. Henriksen.) Respondent acknowledged that he did not, in all respects, comply with the Southern Standard Building Code in his construction of the fireplace for the Webbs. However, Respondent contends that the code provisions are incorrect and that in any event he has been constructing chimneys in excess of twenty (20) years and that all other builders in the area construct chimneys in the same manner as he. In support of his position in this regard, Respondent points to the fact that most of the chimneys in the area do not satisfy the three-feet- height criteria and that various other sections of the Southern Standard Building Code, which he is charged with violating, are either not required or not followed. Respondent acknowledges the fact, and it is found herein, that he is not registered to engage in contracting in Wakulla County, and that he has not qualified James Construction Company as the entity through which he is conducting his contracting business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license as a registered residential contractor (License No. RR0022063) be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be assessed an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500). RECOMMENDED this 26th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged, in conjunction with the Land Surveying Licensing Board, with the responsibility to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to Chapter 472, 455 and 120, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent, Lars Dohm, was licensed as a land surveyor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number LS0002358. Nona Chubboy, in January 1989, was the owner of a lot described as Lot 25, Block J, Tierra Verde, Unit 1, Fourth Replat, Pinellas County, Florida, also known as 727 Columbus Drive East, Tierra Verde, Florida. Ms. Chubboy intended to build a dwelling on the lot, and secured building plans for the dwelling. She was to be her own contractor. In early 1988, she brought the building plans to the Respondent, and asked him to stake out only the lot at that time. Respondent copied the dimensions of the lot and dwelling from the building plans, and returned them to her. In early 1989, Respondent was retained to do a stakeout survey of the house and lot. Respondent requested that a site plan be prepared. Mrs. Chubboy secured it from the house designed, and delivered it to the Respondent. 6 The site plan shows a set back of 20 feet to a series of dotted lines, then a total of the length of the building from front to back of 63 feet, and footage of 37 feet to the rear of the property, which totals the exact distance of the length of the lot, 120 feet. With the site plan and the dimensions of the foundation of the building in his possession, the Respondent proceeded to stake out the foundation of the dwelling on or about January 10, 1989, and prepared a stakeout survey, thereafter. Construction began almost immediately on the project upon the completion of Respondent's stakeout. The masonry work was completed, and the framing of the home began. On or after January 23, 1989, Mrs. Chubboy was concerned the dwelling was too close to the street, and she measured the distance between the foundation and the street. She found it to be set back 20 feet and not 24 feet as intended. As prescribed by Pinellas County, the front set back in the zoning category for 727 Columbus Drive East was 20 feet. Such restriction would preclude the construction of a four foot in depth balcony supported by vertical columns as planned by Mrs. Chubboy in the setback area. Pinellas County did permit her to put in three foot deep balconies but without vertical columns. Mrs. Chubboy was required to redesign the front portions of the second floor of her home by adding beams for balcony supports, because vertical columns could not be used for support. These changes added to the cost of construction. The balconies constructed were not as functional as originally designed and resulted in their restrictive use. On or after January 23, 1989, Respondent provided Mrs. Chubboy with a signed, sealed and certified stakeout survey dated January 23, 1989, showing that the foundation was staked 20 feet from the front of the property, and further indicated that the building stakeout was 59 feet in depth. However, this is at variance with the site plan showed a total building length of 63 feet. When Respondent was confronted with the discrepancy between the actual stakeout and the site plan, he indicated that Mrs. Chubboy should have checked his work, and he was not going to do anything about the discrepancy. The stakeout survey contained the dimensions of the foundation layout, as contained in the building plans (59 feet), which were not contained in the site plan (63 feet). The as-built survey showed where the building was actually constructed, and the foundation was constructed exactly where Respondent staked the foundation. The site plan was inconsistent with the stakeout survey. The site plan clearly shows that the stakes should have been placed 20 feet from the front of the lot to a projection on the building, and the building should have a 63 foot depth from that point. The back of the lot was shown as 37 feet, which totals the length of the lot or 120 feet. The total dimensions of the building could not have been laid out from the site plan, as there is insufficient information on the site plan to give proper dimensions for the building. The dimensions of the building staked out were in accord with the dimensions on the building plan, as evidenced by the stakeout survey. The site plan does conflict with the building plan, as the site plan shows the layout of the building from front to back totals 63 feet. However, it also includes a projection which was intended to represent the second floor balconies in dotted lines. The stakeout survey indicates that the building length was 59 feet. In any event, the back of the building in the site plan is 83 feet from the front of the lot, but as it was staked, it was 79 feet. A skillful surveyor exercising ordinary prudence should have ascertained from the site plan and dimensions on the building plans that there was a 20 foot setback to a vague object. If you then examine the 63 feet shown on the site plan, and sketch out the 59 feet shown on the building plan, there is a four foot discrepancy between the 20 foot setback and where the building is supposed to start. The site plan was vague, and a skilled surveyor would have contacted his client for more specific information, and under such circumstances, should not have proceeded with the job until he had more specific information. A contractor or property owner has a right to rely on the professional ability of a surveyor to stake out the building site in accordance with the site plan or building plan. It is not the client's responsibility to check on the accuracy of the work of a professional. The purpose of a building's stakes is to mark the corners of the building in such a manner that construction can proceed from the stakes. The stakes were not to be moved. An "envelope-type" stakeout is a stakeout where the builder is free to move the building around. It is used where expert builders set their own offsets. It is not the type of stakeout required here. Such stakeouts were not for use by a person of Mrs. Chubboy's experience, nor is it indicated that Respondent was asked to do anything but stake specific corners. Respondent's assertion that the offset stakes were set so that the building could be moved is not credible. The "as-built" survey indicated that the building was placed directly where the stakes were placed by Respondent. Respondent further indicated that he was aware of the discrepancy of four feet between the building plan and the site plan, and chose to proceed with staking the house with a 20 feet set back and 59 feet in depth which added four feet to the back yard. This error by Respondent constitutes negligence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Respondent pay an administrative fine of $1,000. That Respondent be placed on probation for one year subject to such reasonable conditions as the Board may specify. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 1992, 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 21st day of May, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11(in part), 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33. Rejected as not supported by clear and convincing evidence: paragrahs 11(in part: cost of change orders in the design of the home), 12, 13, 34. Rejected as argument: paragraph 28, 29 Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3(in part), 5. Rejected: paragraph 3(in part), 4, 6. COPIES FURNISHED: William S. Cummins, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional of Land Surveyors 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Mr. Lars Dohm Apartment #611 5790 34th St. St. Petersburg, FL 33711
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.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Eric Neale Anderson, has been a registered building contractor in Florida, at all times relevant to this proceeding with license number RB 0016806. In December, 1983 Respondent entered into a contract with Mrs. Linda Fatzinger, a homeowner in Columbia County, for replacement of a roof. The contract price for the reroofing was $2820. After Respondent completed the reroofing, leaks developed in the new roof which Respondent attempted to fix. Respondent did not correct the leaking roof. Mrs. Fatzinger contracted with another building contractor who did repair her roof and eliminate the leaks for an additional charge of approximately $900. Mrs. Fatzinger's roof was inspected by representatives of the Columbia County Building Department who found violations of portions of the Standard Building Code, as adopted by Columbia County Ordinance 78-1, in the work performed by Respondent. Specifically, Respondent installed shingles on a portion of Mrs. Fatzinger's roof that had a pitch of only 1/2 inch per foot instead of the two inches per foot which is required by Section R-803 of the Standard Building Code when shingles are used. This means that the rise of the roof was only 1/2 inch per running foot which is virtually a flat roof. The manufacturer's packaging of the shingles used by Respondent clearly states that the shingles are for application to roof decks having inclines of not less than two (2) inches per foot. Respondent did not obtain a building permit for this reroofing job, although one was required by Columbia County Ordinance 78-1, and he admits knowing that one was required. In the installation of shingles on Mrs. Fatzinger's roof, it has been deemed admitted that Respondent used an insufficient number of nails. Although four nails per shingle were recommended by the manufacturer and are required by Section R-803, Standard Building Code, for the shingles that were used, in some areas Respondent used only two or three staples per shingle, and did not use any nails. In making the above findings of fact, Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered one through four are approved and proposed finding number five is rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Respondent's license be suspended for a period of three (3) months. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of March, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eric N. Anderson Route 9, Post Office Box 322 Lake City, Florida 32085 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not Respondent failed to fulfill contractual obligations; willfully or deliberately disregarded and violated applicable local building codes and made misleading representations by issuing a warranty which he later refused to honor in violation of Section 489.129(1)(c), (d) and Section 455.277(1)a, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact: By its Administrative Complaint filed herein, Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against Respondent, as licensee and against his license to practice contracting in the state of Florida. Respondent is a certified general contractor having been issued license number CBC006481. On June 6, 1981, Respondent, as qualifier for Behr Contracting, Inc., entered into a contract with Mrs. Susan Fuller to reroof her home at 811 Santiago Street, Coral Gables, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Respondent guaranteed to Mrs. Fuller that all materials furnished by Behr Contracting would be of standard quality, type and condition, free from defects, and that said labor and materials would be guaranteed against structural and material defects. Respondent pulled the required building permit and commenced the reroofing off Mrs. Fuller's residence on June 11, 1981. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) During the course of construction, several defects became apparent. As example, the tile was installed approximately two months after the contract was entered (August, 1981) and during the next month, September, 1981, leaks started which damaged the ceiling, pecky cypress, plaster in the dining and bedrooms, the kitchen walls, and other interior furnishings of the Fuller residence. When Mrs. Fuller observed the leaks in the roof, she immediately notified the Respondent that there was a problem with the roof and requested that he return to the site to inspect the roof and to correct same. Despite repeated demands, Behr refused to repair the interior damage to Mrs. Fuller's residence. During approximately June, 1982, Behr installed a solar system on the Fuller's residence. Respondent guaranteed the roof on the Fuller residence for a period of fifteen years including the texture coating to the roof and the slide of the residence. Respondent also agreed to abide by all ordinances, rules and regulation of the Building Department of the City of Coral Gables, Florida. Mrs. Fuller filed a formal complaint against Respondent on approximately May 24, 1982. Following the installation of the roof on the Fuller residence, several leaks lasted for extended periods of time and the Fullers including her roommate, Heather Stever, had to repeatedly place buckets in and around the Fuller residence to attempt to contain water which was entering the roof through various cracks in the roof. Evidence of the leakage was evident in at least three rooms of the Fuller residence. (Testimony of Robert Harvilla and Heather Stever) The Respondent contends that there was no defective workmanship or materials used or performed by him in the reroofing of the Fuller residence and that the cause of the leakage in the Fuller residence was precipitated by nuts, bolts and other foreign materials which were strewn over the roof when the solar system was installed. Respondent contends that the foundation of the roof was penetrated by the solar system which destroyed the integrity of the roof. In this regard, it is found herein that the leakage to the Fuller residence occurred immediately after the Respondent installed the new roof to that residence and that the leakage persisted until it was corrected months later after Mrs. Fuller had her home reroofed in December of 1982. Evidence adduced herein failed to establish that the leakage to the Fuller residence which ultimately caused damage to the interior of their residence, was a result of foreign matter attributable to any cause other than the installation of the new roof by Respondent. Finally, Respondent refused to complete other items he specifically contracted to perform for Mrs. Fuller including painting of the interior trim and to completely texture coat the exterior of the Fuller residence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's certified general contractor's license number CBC006481 be suspended for a period of one (1) year. 2/ DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 1983.
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
