The Issue Whether or not upon inspection conducted by the Petitioner on February 26, 1976, the Respondent failed to have installed exit lights, signs, and globes for the first and second floors, in violation of Section 509.211(2), Florida Statutes and Rule 7C-1.04(3), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not upon inspection conducted by the Petitioner on February 26, 1976, the Respondent failed to provide a handrail installation from the second to the first floor in violation of Rule 7C-1.03(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent now holds, and on February 26, 1976, held license no. 23-893H, with the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. An inspection conducted by inspectors for the Petitioner on February 26, 1976, done at the Florence Apartments, 710 Northeast 127th Street, North Miami, Florida, revealed globe lights in the areas of the exits of the first and second floors. These lights were white in color and did not indicate by writing that the areas illuminated were in fact exits. There were no other signs or apparatuses indicating the areas as exits. Inspection on that same day, to wit, February 26, 1976, and in the same location revealed that the rear stairwell within the subject building, within the first and second floors of the building, did not have a handrail presently installed on that rear stairway as called for in Rule 7C-1.03(1), Florida Administrative Code. There had been a handrail there before, but it was removed prior to the inspection. The rear stairs were flanked on one side by a full wall running from the floor to the ceiling, and by a parallel waist high wall opposite the full wall, which may be described as a banister. This banister wall was approximately 4" thick, running the length of the stairs, with a flat surface atop the banister. The flat surface spoken of does not serve the function of a handrail. The subject building was constructed prior to January 1, 1970 and is an apartment house within the meaning of Chapter 509,F.S.
Recommendation It is recommended that a fine in the amount of $100.00 be imposed in lieu of suspension or revocation, for the violation as established in count two of the complaint. DONE and ENTERED THIS 8th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George A. Frix Owner 365 Northeast 125th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage The Johns Building 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-1727 FILE NO. 23-893H ROBERT J. GROVER, TRUSTEE, t/a THE FLORENCE APARTMENTS, Respondent. /
The Issue The issues presented for decision herein are whether or not the Respondent diverted funds from a construction project involved herein; violated local building codes and thereby engaged in misconduct in the practice of electrical contracting all in violation of Sections 489.533(1)(m), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (1983).
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. During times material herein, Respondent is and continues to be a registered electrical contractor having been issued license number ER004865. On November 28, 1983, Clell Villella, manager of Coral Castle, Inc., a tourist attraction, and Respondent entered into a subcontractual agreement for the installation of parking lot and outdoor lighting electrical connections to existing electrical services at the Coral Castle. The contract price was $26,600 and the parties agreed that the work would be-completed by January 1, 1984, the beginning of Coral Castle's peak tourist season. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2 and testimony of Clell Villella). On December 8, 1983, Respondent was given an initial deposit of $6,600 to commence work. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3). After Respondent was given the initial deposit he failed to appear at the Coral Castle to commence work on the project for approximately 30 days despite Manager Villella's constant prodding through phone calls. Respondent commenced work on the project during early January, 1984 and worked evenings for a period of approximately ten to twelve days on the project. After Respondent had worked on the project for approximately twenty hours, he abandoned it by failing to appear at the site for more than 30 days. Respondent failed to return Manager Villella's phone calls. When it became apparent that Respondent would not be returning to the project, Manager Villella hired Tierney Electrical Contractors, Inc., (Tierney) to complete the electrical work on March 7, 1984. Tierney submitted a proposal to complete the work in question for the sum of $36,500. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). Tierney was requested to make some modifications to the work which Respondent had contracted to perform. Tierney estimates the added cost resulting from the modifications increased the value of his proposal by approximately $4,000. (Testimony of William Tierney). When Tierney commenced construction on the project, Manager Villella requested that he estimate the amount of the work that Respondent had completed. Tierney estimated that amount to be 13% of the project or approximately $2,226. Tierney's calculations were based on the fact that Respondent had installed approximately 643 feet of 3/4-inch rigid conduit. Based on the estimate of the work completed by Respondent, Coral Castle, by letter, requested Respondent to refund the $4,374 difference between the amount of the deposit initially tendered to him and the amount of work completed as estimated by Tierney Electrical Contractors. As of the date of the hearing, Respondent failed to respond to this demand or return any telephone calls from Manager Villella. At no time while Respondent performed the work in question for Coral Castle, Inc., had he (Respondent) applied for or obtained an electrical permit to perform the work in question. Respondent acknowledges that no permit was obtained for the work he performed at Coral Castle. However, he maintains that the common practice in the area is that permits are "pulled" after the work is completed or, in any event, prior to the first inspection; that it is permissible to commence construction except that a permit has to be obtained prior to the time when the job is either completed or the first inspection is due. However, a review of the pertinent sections of the South Florida Building Code, 1 1984 edition, reveals that it is necessary to first file an application for and obtain a permit prior to. commencement of construction. Chapter 3, Section 301, South Florida Building Code (1984 Edition).m
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Respondent's license as a Registered Electrical Contractor be suspended for a period of one (1) year. Further, it is recommended that the suspension be stayed for a period of 30 days during which time the Respondent will be allowed an opportunity to enter into a settlement agreement with Coral Castle, Inc., and provided that such an agreement is made, that the suspension revert into a term of probation for a like period i.e., (1 year). Finally, it is recommended that the Respondent pay the Petitioner an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000. Recommended this 4th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1986.
The Issue Whether Respondent, who is licensed as a Plans Examiner, a Building Inspector, and a Building Code Administrator, committed the offenses alleged in the three-count Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties if any that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida with the responsibility to regulate Building Code Administrators and Inspectors pursuant to Section 20.165, Chapter 455, and Part XII of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held licenses as a Standard Plans Examiner in Building and Mechanical; a Standard Inspector in Building and Mechanical; and a Building Code Administrator. Section 468.603(1), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: Building code administrator" or "building official" means any of those employees of municipal or county governments with building construction regulation responsibilities who are charged with the responsibility for direct regulatory administration or supervision of plan review, enforcement, or inspection of building construction, erection, repair, addition, remodeling, demolition, or alteration projects that require permitting indicating compliance with building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, gas, fire prevention, energy, accessibility, and other construction codes as required by state law or municipal or county ordinance. This term is synonymous with "building official" as used in the administrative chapter of the Standard Building Code and the South Florida Building Code. . . . Section 468.603(2), Florida Statutes, provides the following definition relevant to this proceeding: (2) "Building code inspector" means any of those employees of local governments or state agencies with building construction regulation responsibilities who themselves conduct inspections of building construction, erection, repair, addition, or alteration projects that require permitting indicating compliance with building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, gas, fire prevention, energy, accessibility, and other construction codes as required by state law or municipal or county ordinance. Section 468.603(6), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: "Categories of building code inspectors" include the following: "Building inspector" means a person who is qualified to inspect and determine that buildings and structures are constructed in accordance with the provisions of the governing building codes and state accessibility laws. * * * (e) "Mechanical inspector" means a person who is qualified to inspect and determine that the mechanical installations and systems for buildings and structures are in compliance with the provisions of the governing mechanical code. Section 468.603(7), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: "Plans examiner" means a person who is qualified to determine that plans submitted for purposes of obtaining building and other permits comply with the applicable building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, gas, fire prevention, energy, accessibility, and other applicable construction codes. Categories of plans examiners include: (a) Building plans examiner. * * * (c) Mechanical plans examiner. Section 468.603(7), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: "Building code enforcement official" or "enforcement official" means a licensed building code administrator, building code inspector, or plans examiner. Ramon Melendez, doing business as R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., was not licensed as a construction contractor in Florida at any time relevant to this proceeding. Mr. Melendez was not individually licensed as a construction contractor in Florida at any time relevant to this proceeding. R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., was not qualified as a construction business by any certified or registered contractor in Florida at any time relevant to this proceeding. On or about March 20, 1998, Mr. Melendez, doing business as R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., contracted with Pedro Camacho to re-roof the residence located at 3961 N.W. 170th Street, Miami, Florida, for the sum of $3,000. Mr. Camacho paid Mr. Melendez the agreed sum in cash based on the contract dated March 20, 1998. On or about June 3, 1998, Mr. Melendez, doing business as R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., contracted with Santos Valentin to re- roof the residence located at 4412 N.W. 185th Street, Opa Locka, Florida, for the sum of $2,800. Mr. Valentin paid R.E.M. Roofing, Inc. the sum of $1,400 on June 8, 1998. Mr. Valentin paid Mr. Melendez the additional sum of $800 on June 10, 1998. Both payments, which were by check, were for the roofing work described in the contract dated June 3, 1998. On April 6, 1998, Respondent applied for and obtained a permit for the Camacho roofing work. This permit application was submitted to the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Planning Development and Regulation. Respondent signed the permit application as “the contractor” and inserted his contractor license number and social security number on the application. The application submitted by Respondent on April 6, 1998, was a fraudulent sham. At no time was Respondent the contractor for the Camacho roofing work. Respondent’s action in obtaining the building permit aided and abetted an unlicensed contractor to engage in contracting. On June 8, 1998, Respondent applied for and obtained a permit for the Valentin roofing work. This permit application was submitted to the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Planning Development and Regulation. Respondent signed the permit application as “the contractor” and inserted his contractor license number and social security number on the application. The application submitted by Respondent on June 8, 1998, was a fraudulent sham. At no time was Respondent the contractor for the Valentin roofing work. Respondent’s action in obtaining the building permit aided and abetted an unlicensed contractor to engage in contracting. Miami-Dade County Compliance Investigator Daniel Vuelta filed criminal charges against Respondent in two separate criminal cases. One case was for his involvement in the Camacho roofing project and the other was for his involvement in the Valentin roofing projects. These cases were brought in Miami- Dade County Court and assigned case numbers M99-57926 and M99- 57931. In each case, Respondent was charged with one count of Unlawful Application for Building Permit and one count of Aiding and Abetting an Unlicensed Contractor. All charges were first- degree misdemeanors. On February 22, 2001, Respondent entered into a plea agreement to resolve those criminal charges. Respondent entered a plea of guilty to each of the two counts in Case M99-57931, and he was subsequently adjudicated guilty of each count. As part of the plea agreement, the State agreed to nolle pross Case M99-57926. The crimes to which Respondent entered a guilty plea involved fraudulent building permits and, consequently, were directly related to building code enforcement. Petitioner’s investigative costs for this case, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, were $427.29.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the offenses alleged in Counts I, II, and III. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order revoke Respondent’s licensure and impose an administrative fine against him in the amount of $3,000. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner order Respondent to pay its investigative costs, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, in the amount of $427.29. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 2005.
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 presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent's certified general contractor's license should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined based on conduct set forth in two Administrative Complaints filed herein dated March 14 and July 19, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a certified general contractor in Florida and has been issued license number CGC 015834. 3/ (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida responsible for enforcing the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, relating to the imposition of licensure standards and standards for the practice of contracting. During times material hereto, Respondent was a full-time employee of the Metropolitan Dade County Aviation Authority. At no time during his employment with the authority did Respondent advise the Dade County Aviation Authority that he was performing work outside the scope of his employment while on County time. When confronted with the results of an investigation undertaken by the Dade County Attorney's Office in June of 1983 with regard to his (Respondent's) possible violation of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Respondent resigned from his position with the County. (Tr. pages 101-102) DOAH CASE NO. 84-1298 During late February, 1983, Albert Kairy contracted with an unlicensed contractor for the closure of a carport at his residence located in North Miami, Florida. After observing Respondent's classified advertisement in a local flier, Kairy contacted Respondent with regard to preparing necessary blueprints for the enclosure. Kairy contracted with Respondent to prepare both the blueprints and to supervise the activities of the unlicensed contractor. The contract amount was $400. On February 25, 1983, Kairy received an owner/builder permit for the carport enclosure from the City of North Miami. (Tr. pages 7-10, 93) Subsequently, problems began to develop with work performed by the unlicensed contractor and Respondent persuaded Kairy to dismiss that individual and to retain him as the contractor. On March 7, 1983, Respondent entered into a contract with Kairy to construct a room addition to the residence. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) The project was to be completed pursuant to plans and specifications approved by the City of North Miami. The contract called for a bedroom addition; an additional bathroom and a utility room. The contract included extending the carport wall approximately 101 feet. The contract price was $14,500 which included an advance of $2,500. On March 12, 1983, Respondent entered into a second construction contract with Kairy. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Tr. 19) The contract price was $15,000. Except for the increase in the contract price, Kairy was led to believe that the terms and conditions of the second contract were substantially similar to the contract previously executed by the parties on March 7, 1983. However, Respondent reduced the extension of the carport wall to 10 feet and Respondent did not inform Kairy of this reduction. (Tr. page 48) The contract called for draw payments as follows: $4,000 as a downpayment/advance; $3,000 upon completion of slab and block walls; $1,500 upon completion of piping and tie-columns; $2,500 upon completion of partition and drywall; $3,000 upon completion of the roof, and $1,000 upon completion of the job. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) Respondent subsequently applied for a permit from the City of North Miami. The City of North Miami denied Respondent's application because Respondent failed to comply with the Dade County licensing requirements. (Tr. pages 21-22) Although Respondent acted in the capacity of a general contractor, he (Respondent) requested that Kairy obtain a owner/builder permit. Upon applying for the owner/builder permit, the City cancelled the original permit for the carport enclosure. (Tr. page 94) Kairy obtained the owner/builder permit pursuant to Respondent's assurances the permit would be properly transferred to Respondent's contracting license. The City provided Kairy with a "hold harmless letter" for Respondent to execute. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Upon presentation of that letter by Kairy to Respondent, Respondent refused to execute the "hold harmless letter." (Tr. pages 22-24) Subsequently, Kairy and Respondent executed an addendum to the construction contract. The addendum involved changing the enclosures roof structure from shingle to barrel tile. This change involved a price difference of $1,950 and increased the total contract price to $16,950. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5, Tr. pages 31-32) The addendum was executed after completion of the tie-beam and tie- column portion of the construction project. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the March 12, 1983 construction contract, Kairy provided Respondent with the following amounts: $4,000 as an advance/downpayment on March 21, 1983; ($2,500 under the March 7 contract plus an additional $1,500); $3,000 upon completion of the slab and block work; $400 for preparation of the original set of plans; $500 toward tinted windows; $1,500 upon completion of the tie-beam and tie- column; $1,500 as an advance on the barrel tile roof; and $1,500 as an advance upon the completion of the roofs. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) Kairy paid Respondent a total of $12,400 on the total contract price of $16,950 or approximately 73 percent of the contract price. Kairy timely remitted to Respondent installment payments for the slab and block work, tie- beam and tie-columns and advanced Respondent $3,000 towards completion of the roof. During April, 1983, Respondent commenced construction for enclosing the roof structure. Respondent ceased all construction activity upon being informed (by Kairy) that he would no longer pay Respondent in cash. (Tr. page 44) Respondent refused to accept payment in any form other than cash and offered no explanation, reason or excuse to Kairy for the cessation of work on this project. Kairy offered several reasons for his refusal to pay contract installments in cash. First, Respondent refused to execute the hold harmless letter provided by the City of North Miami and Respondent failed to properly supervise the construction activities by, among other things, disappearing from the project for a period of approximately three weeks. Finally, Respondent requested additional advances on the contract while the project was not progressing as scheduled. (Tr. pages 28, 44-46) Respondent did not return to the construction site after Kairy refused cash payments. On July 20, 1983, Respondent's roofing subcontractor filed a claim of lien against Kairy's property in the amount of $1,210. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8) Respondent has failed to satisfy the claim of lien and Kairy is in the process of satisfying that claim. (.Tr. page 54) Respondent also failed to pay an electrical subcontractor for services provided in the amount of $965. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7) Again, Kairy is currently in the process of satisfying that debt and Respondent refuses to honor that obligation. (Tr. 57) Kairy reimbursed the plumbing subcontractor in the amount of $675 after Respondent's personal check was returned due to insufficient funds. (Tr. page 62 and Petitioner's Exhibit 9) On April 1, 1983, the City of North Miami Building Department inspected the foundation and slab. On April 18, 1983, the Building Department inspected the tie-beam and columns. On May 6, 1983, the City of North Miami Building Department performed a tin-cap inspection on the enclosure roof. The City of North Miami Building Department estimated the actual construction completed when Respondent left the project and determined that it was approximately 70 percent complete. Completed construction included the slab, foundation, walls and tie-beam. Little interior construction work had been performed and drywall and partition walls were only partially complete. Kairy has either expended or will be required to expend the following sums in connection with the contract with Respondent: $12,400 - the amount paid directly to Respondent; $1,210 - the amount of the roofer's lien; $965 representing the amount owed to the electrician; and $675 representing the amount Kairy paid the plumbing subcontractor for a total of $15,250. 4/ Although Respondent completed approximately 70 percent of the actual construction, Kairy will correspondingly be required to expend approximately 90 percent of the contract price over and above monies paid to Respondent to complete this project. DOAH CASE NO. 84-3202 On May 12, 1983, the City of Miramar issued William Borden an owner/builder permit for the construction of a four-bedroom, three-bath home to be located in Miramar, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8) Between May and October, 1983, the Bordens performed the site preparation necessary for pouring the building's foundation and slab. After observing Respondent's classified advertisement in a local flier, the Bordens contacted Respondent with regard to the construction of their home. (Tr. page 16) On November 11, 1983, Respondent contracted with the Bordens to provide certain contracting services relative to the construction of their home. The Bordens contracted Respondent to pour the foundation and slab, perform the block work, frame and pour the tie-beam and tie-columns. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Tr. pages 18-20) The Bordens were to complete all of remaining construction of their home) The contract price was approximately $16,810. On October 17, 1983, the City of Miramar issued William Borden an owner/builder permit. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7) William Borden was to install the rough plumbing prior to Respondent pouring the foundation and slab. (Tr. 33) Due to certain time constraints, Respondent offered to install the rough plumbing. On October 25, 1983, Respondent received $475 from the Bordens toward installation of the rough plumbing. Respondent failed to subcontract the installation of the rough plumbing and failed to obtain the necessary building permit. On November 8, 1983, the Bordens provided Respondent an additional $470 representing final payment for installation of the rough plumbing. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) On November 1, 1983, Mr. Bill Lafferty, chief building and mechanical inspector for the City of Miramar, performed an inspection of the rough plumbing work performed for the Bordens by Respondent. Lafferty determined that Respondent had failed to install the rough plumbing in accordance with provisions of the South Florida Building Code as adopted by the Broward County Code. As a consequence, Lafferty required Respondent to remove and reinstall the rough plumbing in accordance with applicable building code provisions. On November 7, 1983, Lafferty reinspected and approved the rough plumbing as reinstalled by Respondent. (Tr. pages 51-55) Respondent reinstalled rough plumbing at the Borden residence during the first week of November, 1983. Respondent did not obtain a building permit prior to reinstalling the rough plumbing. On November 16, 1983, the City of Miramar levied against Respondent a fee totalling $163.45. Part of that levy included $63.45 for renewal of the building permit and reinspection fee, and the remaining $100 represented a fine against Respondent for failing to properly obtain a building permit. (Tr. pages 58, 64 and Petitioner's Exhibit 7) On November 10, 1983, Salvatore Jenco, structural building inspector for the City of Miramar Building Department, inspected and approved the footing slab for the Borden residence. Subsequently, Respondent poured the concrete slab and foundation. Respondent did not obtain the requisite building permit prior to proceeding with construction. Respondent could not properly proceed with construction pursuant to William Borden's owner/builder permit. On November 11, 1983, inspector Jenco reinspected the concrete slab and foundation as poured by Respondent. As a result of that inspection, Jenco ordered all construction activities to be stopped at the Borden project. Specifically, Respondent materially deviated from the architect's plans and specifications by failing to pour a monolithic (continuous) slab and foundation for the Borden residence. As result of that deviation, the structural integrity of the building was compromised. (Tr. pages 71-73) Construction activity at the Borden residence was halted approximately three weeks while the Borden's architect developed a new set of blueprints. After the City approved the revised blueprints, Respondent began laying blocks and framing the tie-beam. Subsequently, Respondent requested Sunshine Concrete Company to commence pouring the tie-beam. The concrete company requested payment in cash due to the fact that Respondent had previously tendered a check to Sunshine Concrete Company which was returned due to insufficient funds. When informed of the concrete company's demands, the Respondent ordered the company to cease pouring the tie-beam. Upon being informed the tie-beam required a continuous pour, Respondent left the construction site and the Bordens were required to directly reimburse the concrete company. Respondent abandoned the project and has not returned to the construction site. Respondent owes the Bordens approximately $4,696 in reimbursed expenses. (Tr. pages 40-42) Respondent's Defense In DOAH Case No. 84-1298, Respondent did not offer any testimony to refute or otherwise rebut the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent refused to be placed under oath when he made statements as to his position in Case No. 84-3202.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's certified general contractor's license be suspended for a period of two (2) years. Additionally, Respondent shall pay to the Construction Industry Licensing Board an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500. However, if Respondent provides the Construction Industry Licensing Board with sufficient evidence indicating settlement and satisfaction of the existing disputes between Mr. Albert Kairy and Mr. and Mrs. William Borden, the suspension shall be reduced to one (1) year after which time it is recommended that his license be reinstated. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1985.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Thomas J. Embro holds two licenses issued by Petitioner. They are RG0021774, registered general contractor, and RC0021647, registered roofing contractor. He has held these licenses since 1974. Sometime in the fall of 1979 Respondent was hired by Richard F. Rogers to replace the roof on a residential structure located at 4119 N.W. 12th Avenue, Gainesville, Florida. At that time the house was for sale. Mr. Rogers, who is a real estate agent, wanted the roof replaced in anticipation of a Veterans Administration financed sale of the house to Mr. William Schrader. Prior to beginning work on the roof Mr. Embro did not obtain a building permit from the City of Gainesville for the job. On October 1, 1979 Mr. Schrader made a complaint to the Building Division of the City of Gainesville. His complaint stated that the roofing work performed by Respondent was unsatisfactory. Mr. Al Davis, a building inspector employed by Gainesville, reviewed the city records and determined that a permit had not been issued to Respondent for reroofing Mr. Schrader's house. On October 3, 1979 Mr. Davis wrote a letter to Mr. Embro which stated in its entirety: October 3, 1979 Mr. Thomas J. Embro 3816 SW 18 Street Gainesville, Florida Dear Sir: We have received a complaint from Mr. Bill Schrader of 4119 NW 12th Avenue on the reroofing that you performed on his residence. After receiving the complaint I investigated out records and the work performed by your company and found the following violations: Our records indicate that a permit was not issued to reroof the above address, this is a violation of Section 106.1 of the Southern Standard Building Code. The roof material was not installed correctly. Shingles shall be installed in accordance to manufacture [sic] re- quirements and some parts of the roof are too flat for shingles. Interior damage has been caused by the roof leaking from not installing the shingles as required. The above violations shall be corrected within 10 days from receipt of this letter. Your compliance will make further action unnecessary. Sincerely, /s/ Al Davis Building Official cc: Mr. Bill Dow, State Investigator Mr. Bill Schrader Mr. Embro applied on October 25, 1979 for a permit from Gainesville for the work at 4119 N.W. 12th Avenue. The permit was issued on December 6, 1979. It is not unusual in Gainesville for a contractor to begin a construction job before the appropriate permit is applied for or issued. When this is not a frequent practice of a particular contractor the City imposes no penalty. If the contractor habitually begins construction without permits, the City imposes a penalty by charging him double the regular permit application fee. Mr. Embro was not charged a penalty by the City in this case. In the course of his contracting business Mr. Embro frequently asked his wife to make permit applications for him before he begins work. In this case he believed that she had applied for the appropriate permit. The City of Gainesville allows persons other than the contractor to apply for a building permit on behalf of a contractor if the contractor has first filed an authorization with the City designating an agent. Mr. Embro filed such an authorization on February 13, 1980 for his wife to be his designated agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Thomas J. Embro. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON 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 November, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Daniel Fowler, a general contractor licensed in Florida (T. 289), qualified Raben-Pastal, A Joint Venture, under license No. CG CA15439 on August 15, 1980, and renewed the license for the period 1981 to 1983. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. At all pertinent times, he was employed as a construction superintendent for Raben-Pastal, at a residential development in the City of Coconut Creek known as The Hammocks at Coconut Creek, Phase II (The Hammocks), and answered to Paul Pariser, president both of Raben Builders and of Pastal Construction, Inc., and himself a general contractor licensed in Florida. Before construction began, Raben-Pastal secured a building permit for a two- story building (No. 280-81), Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, on February 19, 1981, and for a four-story building (No. 344-81), Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, on March 4, 1981. Respondent personally signed the applications, listing certificate of competency No. CG CA15439 on each. PLANS CHANGE After work had begun, Raben-Pastal decided on a change of floor plan for the two-story building. Their architect, Donald Bryan, approached James Cowley, Director of Planning and Zoning, and building official for the City of Coconut Creek. Mr. Bryan offered the building official an amended floor plan, but, after discussing it, the two men agreed that new elevations were involved as well as plumbing location changes, which should be reflected on additional drawings. Thereafter, Mr. Bryan "went back and submitted an entirely new set of working drawings and all of the architectural sheets to reflect" (T. 246) the changes. Eight or nine of the twelve pages in the amended application differed from the original application. The only structural change was in the balcony areas. (T. 238.) At the time the change of plans application was submitted on February 27, 1981, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, work on the two-story building had progressed through completion of the foundation. STOP WORK ORDER ENTERED On March 2, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote and had delivered by hand a letter to "Daniel Fowler, Raben/Pastal" in which he stated: Please be advised that until such time that the Revised Plans have been reviewed and approved, permit #280-81 is suspended and that the previously approved plans are to be considered disapproved. All work on the building shall cease immediately. A notice to this effect will be attached to the permit board as of this date. While in all probability a new permit fee will not be necessary the standard plan examination fee shall be required prior to the resumption of work. For your reference, the following are the applicable South Florida Building Code 1/ Sections, 302.1(E), 302.4(H), 303.4 and 304.4 (A)(B). Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. The following day, Mr. Pariser wrote Mr. Cowley, as follows: In response to your letter of March 2nd, it is our opinion that stopping work on the building under code numbers 301.3, 302.3, 303.4 and 304.4 is invalid. We have contacted both our architect and structural engineer and confirmed that the 2 story revised plans have no revisions to the super structure. Since for the next 3 weeks we are doing nothing but super structure work, and certainly within that time frame, you will have had enough time to process the revised plans, we will continue to build the building as per permit #280-81 with our independent inspector making inspections per the South Florida Building Code requirements. . . Respondent's Exhibit No. 16. Mr. Pariser wrote Mr. Cowley a second letter on March 3, 1981, to the same general effect enclosing a letter signed by the building's architect and an engineer, which "represent[ed] that there are no structural changes outside of a minor slab configuration." Respondent's Exhibit No. 17. On March 4, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote Mr. Pariser, with a copy to Mr. Fowler, as follows: I am in receipt of your letter of March 3, 1981, wherein you stated the stop work order issued pursuant to my letter of March 2, 1981 was invalid. My position, of course, is that my action was not only valid, but in fact mandated by code. After meeting with your architect, Mr. Bryan, I propose the following solution. The stop work order will remain in effect for Construction only, i.e. steel re-inforcement, concrete, etc. could not be placed. Site work could continue i.e. soil preparation, filling, compacting, placing of batter boards, excavation for footings and forming. If the above meets with your approval, please acknowledge. Respondent's Exhibit No. 15. To this, Mr. Pariser responded the following day with this letter: In response to your letter of March 4th, the construction that we are proceeding with is just the very 1st floor lift of columns. That lift of columns is the same as shown on the plans for permit #280-81. There is no reason why you could not look at the set of plans you now have in your office for permit #280-81 and make a determination on the number of bars, sizing and location of same. I believe there is a total of 23 columns. Independent of this, you have already received a letter from our architect and an independent engineer stating that these columns will remain the same and you will have an independent engineer's inspection signed off on the permit card. My sincere appreciation for your understanding and return of this letter with your signature below acknowledging acceptance. If however, there is any further harassment in this matter, we will have no alternative but to invoke Chapter 71-575 Section 4 a of the South Florida Building Code, which states in part. . ."if any elected or appointed officials prohibit by any means, directly or indirectly, the use of any materials, types of construction and methods of design authorized by the code or alternate materials, types of construction and methods of design approved by the provisions of the Code, then the elected or appointed official may be removed from office for nonfeasance, misfeasance or malfeasance in office". . .Respondent's Exhibit No. 19. On March 10, 1981, the amended plans were approved. After still further correspondence, Mr. Cowley wrote Mr. Pariser, with a copy to Mr. Fowler, advising that "receipt of the required $200.00 Plan Exam Fee. . .re[s]cinded the suspension of Permit #280-81," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, effective April 7, 1981. STOP WORK ORDER VIOLATED By the time the stop work order was rescinded, the two-story building's superstructure was finished. No work accomplished before April 7, 1981, differed from that called for in the original plans. Through respondent and others, Raben-Pastal placed steel-reinforced concrete and performed other work in violation of the stop work order, without testing the validity of the order before the Board of Rules and Appeals or by initiating mandamus or other judicial proceedings. Respondent directed and participated in this work deliberately and with awareness that a stop work order was outstanding. At no time between March 2, 1981, and April 7, 1981, was anybody aware of the design defects that later came to light. STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS In late April of 1981, Coconut Creek's Mr. Cowley learned of cracking in concrete slabs around columns in both the two-story and the four-story buildings. By this time, roof slabs on both buildings had been poured, but neither ground slab had been finished. On the city's behalf, Mr. Cowley engaged D. E. Britt & Associates, consulting engineers, to examine the buildings. After Duncan Britt telephoned to say the buildings should be shored, Mr. Cowley orally advised respondent Fowler that shoring was necessary, on May 6 or 7, 1981. SHORING ORDERED On May 7, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote and caused to be delivered by hand to Paul Pariser a letter in which he stated: I have just received instructions from Mr. Britt of D. E. Britt and Associates to the effect that a minimum of four shores must be placed around ALL columns in the above referenced buildings. Said shores shall be placed immediately and remain in place until such time that the structural adequacy evaluation has been completed. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10. A copy of this letter reached Mr. Fowler on May 8, 1981. On May 11, 1981, Mr. Pariser replied: I am in receipt of your letter of May 7, 1981, please be advised that even though Raben-Pastal is respecting your wishes as to the reshoring, we would like to know specifically by what basis in South Florida building code you are requesting same. Also, what is the time frame which we can expect to have this lifted? Respondent's Exhibit No. 6. In a separate letter dated May 11, 1981, Mr. Pariser wrote Mr. Cowley: I take exception to the fact that you have predetermined that there are structural deficiencies. According to Mr. Bromley, our structural engineer, both buildings, as they stand now, are structurally sound. We, at Raben-Pastal, will stop work on anything that is related to column and plate slabs until the Britt analysis has been submitted. Respondent's Exhibit No. 8. Also on May 11, 1982, in response to a mailgram from respondent Fowler, Mr. Cowley wrote respondent to the effect that his order requiring shores around columns should not be construed as a stop work order. Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. A mailgram confirmation stamped received May 12, 1981, states, over respondent's name: Per your instructions requiring 4 post shores to be placed around our columns on building C-46 and C-47, Raben-Pastal will immediately commence this remedial work. Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. During this period, the engineers advising Raben-Pastal continued to believe that both buildings were sound and this was communicated to Messrs. Fowler and Pariser. FIRST-STORY CEILING SLAB ESSENTIALLY UNSHORED Mr. Cowley, Duncan Britt, Ron Thomas, and Henry A. Luten, Britt's chief engineer, among others, visited the site of the four-story building on May 14, 1981. The building was 240-feet long and had more than 30 columns; the slab on grade had still not been poured. The upper floors had been shored, possibly in the process of flying the forms, but there were no more than two or three shores in place underneath the lowest slab then poured, i.e., the first-story ceiling. If done properly, shoring would have begun at ground level with shores placed on the concrete pads around the columns; work would have progressed upward floor by floor; and no more than two or three shores a day, on average, would have been dislodged by the contraction and expansion of concrete in response to temperature changes. Shoring upper floors without shoring the bottom floor may have enhanced rather than diminished the risk that the building would fall. On May 15, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote respondent Fowler, as follows: Yesterday, May 14, Mr. Britt, Mr. Ludin [sic], Mr. Thomas and I made an inspection of the above referenced buildings. We were appal[l]ed to find that our reshoring instructions had not been carried out on the ground floor of the four story building, permit number 344-81. Considering that a potentially hazardous situation exists, you leave me no choice but to issue the following order. YOU SHALL IMMEDIATELY SHORE THE GROUND AND SECOND FLOOR COLUMNS IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: TWO (2) SHORES ON EACH SIDE AND ONE (1) ON EACH END. ALL SHORES ARE TO BE WEDGED TIGHTLY IN PLACE. GROUND FLOOR SHORES ARE TO BARE [sic] ON FOUNDATION. Failure to comply will result in a Stop Work Order which will remain in effect until such time the engineer of record, Mr. Arthur Bromley, determines what measures are required to correct the existing structural deficiencies. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. To this letter Mr. Fowler replied, also on May 15, 1981: Please be advised pursuant to your letter of today, that to the best of my knowledge we proceeded to a completed state, the shoring on both C-46 [the four-story building] and C-47 [the two-story building] per your request on May 7th. It may appear, without further investigation, that for whatever reason some of the shor[e]s may have come loose, however in your letter of May 7th, not received until May 8th, you asked for all columns in both the 2 story and 4 story buildings, with no mention of the bearing on the foundation. As you well know, your letter was untimely since we had poured our slab on C-47 on the 7th of May and have shored from the slab on grade, on certified compacted sub soil to the 1st raised slab. However in this new letter you are only asking for 2 floors of the 4 story building. Am I to understand that that is the total requirement? On May 7th your letter, specific in nature, required only 4 shor[e]s and this new letter requires 6 shor[e]s. Which is it? Respondent's Exhibit No. 10. The last hour of the working day on May 15, 1981, Mr. Fowler ordered all his men to spend shoring the four-story building. Just how much additional time was devoted to shoring was not clear from the evidence. On May 16, 1981, respondent Fowler wrote Mr. Cowley that "we have already expended. . .64 man hours in reshoring these buildings per your specifications." Respondent's Exhibit No. 11. At the final hearing, however, Mr. Fowler testified that, on May 7, 1981, "five men working on the two buildings [did] nothing but shoring. . .four of those men eight hours and one of those men for four hours," (T. 304-305) (May 7: 36 hours); on May 8, 1981, "seven men working on the shoring on the two buildings for a period of time varying between six and eight hours per man," (T. 305) (May 8: 42 to 56 hours); on May 9, 1981, "five men for half a day. . .[did] nothing but shoring on the two buildings," (T. 305) (May 9: 20 hours); on May 11, 1981, "five men working on shoring for a period varying between five hours and eight hours on the two buildings," (T. 306) (May 11: 25 to 40 hours); on May 12, 1981, "six men working on the shoring. . .one man at four hours and one man at five hours and four men at eight hours," (T. 306) (May 12: 41 hours); on May 13, 1981, "five men working on shoring. . .two for four hours and three for eight hours," (T. 306) (May 13: 32 hours); and, on May 15, 1981, seven men each working one hour (May 15: 7 hours). In short, respondent testified at hearing that 203 hours, at a minimum, were spent shoring both buildings from May 7, 1981, through May 15, 1981. This testimony has not been credited because of the witness's interest, because it exceeds by a factor of three the contemporaneous estimate or claim in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11, and because it does not square with the time sheets, Respondent's Exhibit No. 26, or with the progress reports, Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 27 and 28, on which Mr. Fowler purported to base his testimony. Mr. Goode was one of the workmen who eventually placed shores in the four-story building, working from the ground up. Read most favorably to respondent, Mr. Goode's testimony was that two men could shore one floor of the four-story building in seven hours. This, too, supports the view that Mr. Fowler's testimony about shoring was grossly exaggerated. The record is clear, however, that work of some kind, including work that was not shoring nor incident to the load test nor remedial took place on and under the four-story building between May 7, 1981, and May 15, 1981, thereafter. See Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 26-28; Testimony of Goode, Williams, Fowler. LOAD TEST As late as May 16, 1981, Mr. Pariser wrote Mr. Cowley that "Bromley's letter. . .coupled with the inspection reports list. . .should, beyond a doubt, put your mind, and anyone else's mind, at ease that the buildings. . .are structurally sound." Respondent's Exhibit No. 13. About a week later, a load test was begun by a testing laboratory using criteria agreed on by Henry A. Luten for the City and by Arthur H. Bromley for Raben-Pastal. In order to perform the load test, the shoring under two bays was removed and scaffolding was erected in its place. Afterward, the scaffolding was removed and shores were reinstalled. LAWYERS' MISUNDERSTANDING Construction at The Hammocks had received increasingly strident publicity, depressing sales of prospective condominium apartments. Raben-Pastal was concerned that premature disclosure of the results of the load test might aggravate the situation. John R. Young, Esquire, raised the matter with Paul Stuart, Coconut Creek's city attorney. Mr. Young proposed that the city be represented at the test by its consulting engineers but that no city employee observe the test, against the possibility that a Sunshine Law disclosure requirement would result in dissemination of a public employee's notes or report on the load test, before those conducting the test had been afforded time to evaluate the significance of things like cracks. Mr. Stuart agreed to communicate this proposal to Mr. Cowley and did in fact do so. Mr. Stuart left town, and Mr. Young eventually assumed that his proposal had been accepted. That it had been accepted, he told Mr. Pariser in Mr. Fowler's hearing as fact. Messrs. Pariser and Fowler were surprised to learn then, on the day of the load test, that Ron Thomas, chief building inspector of Coconut Creek, had accompanied Benjamin Eigner, an employee of D. E. Britt & Associates, to the site. Raben-Pastal employees confronted Mr. Thomas, at the edge of the property, and Lee Smith radioed Mr. Pariser's office. Mr. Fowler went to the scene of the controversy and Mr. Pariser telephoned the police. After the police arrived and while Mr. Fowler was talking to a policeman, Mr. Thomas started in the direction of the load test being performed on the second floor of the four-story building; Mr. Fowler ran toward the building and physically interposed himself, blocking Thomas's way. At this juncture, Mr. Fowler was arrested. He was eventually acquitted of criminal charges arising out of this episode. BUILDER'S ENGINEER STOPS TEST Mr. Bromley, who was also on site for the load test, recommended to Raben-Pastal that it be stopped before completion, because "the deflection was at a point that if there was anything further, it would cause permanent structural damage." (T. 234.) Most of the engineers involved later came to agree that there was insufficient post-tension cable in the slabs and that there was a "punching shear problem," a 122-percent "over-stress in the punching shear area." (T. 238.) Punching shear occurs when the "concrete that adheres around the column leaves the rest of the floor area or the floor area separates from the concrete that adheres to the column," (T. 235) with the collapse of the building a possible result. Raben-Pastal's own engineer testified at the hearing that, "It was a dangerous situation, yes." (T. 235.) (Widening the columns eventually remedied the problem.) SECOND STOP WORK ORDER ENTERED On May 28, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote Mr. Pariser that he had visited the site on Sunday, May 25, 1981, found it deserted and "observed that the load test had very prudently been stopped slightly past the half way point." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12. The letter continued: With this knowledge, I have no choice but to place you on notice that the above referenced buildings are unsafe and constructed in a dangerous manner. Pursuant to section 201.9 of the South Florida Building Code and more specifically the fact that over-stressing and a danger of collapse was emminent [sic] if loading were continued. During a meeting held on May 27, 1981, with Mr. Britt, Mr. Luten, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Adams and myself in attendance, Mr. Bromley concluded that all work on the above referenced be stopped, with the exception of remedial repairs and additional testing if necessary until further notice. I am in complete accord and do so order. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12. By the time Mr. Pariser received this letter, he had already ordered all work stopped on or under both buildings, except for shoring, testing, or remedial work. Neither he nor respondent ever authorized any work in violation of the stop work order of May 28, 1981. On June 1, 1981, the day after respondent returned from vacation, Mr. Thomas visited the site and observed and photographed a workman standing on the ground underneath the four-story building, even though respondent had personally ordered everybody to stay out except for replacing shores as necessary. On or before May 29, 1981, the scaffolding installed for the load test had been removed and most, but not all, of the shores had been replaced. Some rested, however, not on the concrete pads around the columns but on scrap lumber and pieces of plywood. Also on June 1, 1981, at least one workman went underneath the four-story building to fetch a piece of PVC pipe.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license for six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 3rd day of September, 1982.
